22 April 1996
Supreme Court
Download

PREETA SINGH Vs HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTH. .

Bench: RAMASWAMY,K.
Case number: C.A. No.-007759-007759 / 1996
Diary number: 76174 / 1994


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: PREETA SINGH ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY& ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       22/04/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (5)   634        1996 SCALE  (4)443

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH                 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1066 OF 1992                          O R D E R      Delay condoned      Leave granted in the Special Leave petition.      The question  that arises for consideration is: whether the respondents  have committed  any illegality in directing the appellants  to pay  a sum  of Rs.  1  lakh  and  odd  as additional amount  as intimated  in their  calculation  memo dated August  9, 1990?  The claim  of the appellants is that the respondents  have no  power to  direct  payment  of  the additional amount  when the  appellants have already paid as per the  original demand.  It is  true that  initially,  the provisional amount  was  calculated  at  the  rate  of  cost incurred  in   the  scheme   known  as   the  Haryana  Urban Development  Housing   Scheme   in   Sector   21,   Gurgaon. Thereafter, the  appellants were  called  upon  to  pay  the additional amount.  The contention  is that  the respondents have got  no power  to call  upon the  appellants to pay the additional amount.      Section 2(aa)  of the  Punjab Urban  Estates  (Sale  of Sites) Rules,  1965 defines  "additional price" to mean such sum of  money as  may be determined by the State Government, in respect of the sale of a site by allotment, having regard to the  amount of  compensation by  which  the  compensation awarded by  the Collector for the land acquired by the State Government of  which the site sold forms a part, is enhanced by the  court on  a reference  made under  Section 18 of the Land Acquisition  Acts 1894  and the amount of cost incurred by the State Government in respect of such reference.      Explanation envisages  that "for  the purposes  of this clause and sub-rule (1) of Rule 4, the expression "the court means the  court as  defined in  clauses (d) of Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and where an appeal is filed, the appellate court.      ’Sale price’ has been absorbed in Rule 4.

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    A conjoint  reading of  the above  rules would  clearly indicate that  the allottee  is liable  to pay  a sale price including the  additional price  and the  cost incurred  and also the  cost of  improvement of  the sites.  It is  to  be remembered that the respondent-HUDA is only a statutory body for catering  to the  housing  requirement  of  the  persons eligible to  claim for  allotment. They  acquire  the  land, develop it  and construct  buildings and allot the buildings or the sites, as the case may be. Under these circumstances, the entire  expenditure  incurred  in  connection  with  the acquisition of  the land and development thereon is required to be borne by the allottees when the sites or the buildings sold after  the development  are offered  on the date of the sale in  accordance with the regulations and also conditions of sale. It is seen That in the notice dated August 9, 1990, the total  area, net  area, the payable amount for the gross acreage, the  acreage left  for the  developmental  purpose, balance recoverable  from the  plot holders, plot-table area have been  given for each of the area and recovery rate also has been  mentioned  under  the  said  notice.  Under  these circumstances,  there   is  no   ambiguity   left   in   the calculations. If,  at all, the appellants had got any doubt, they would  have approached  the authority  and  sought  for further information. It is not the case the; they had sought the information  and the  same  was  withheld.  Under  these circumstances, we  do not  find any illegality in the action taken by  the respondents.  The High  Court, therefore,  was right in refusing to interfere with the order      The appeals are dismissed. No costs.