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

PETITIONER: SHIMLA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ASHA RANI

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       26/02/1996

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

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1591            JT 1996 (3)   400  1996 SCALE  (2)841

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4389 OF 1996                -----------------------------          (Arising out of SLP (C) No.18293 of 1995)                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard the counsel on both sides.      These appeals  by special leave arise from the order of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla made on June 6, 1995 in  W.P. No.88/95.  The admitted  facts  are  that  the respondent had applied under Self-Finance Scheme in 1986 for allotment of  the flats.  The respondent had deposited a sum of Rs.13,800/- for ’A’ type house. On November 13, 1986, the respondent was informed that she had to pay a tentative cost of Rs.1,44,000/- which included earnest money of Rs.13,800/- already deposited.  In other  words,  she  was  required  to deposit Rs.1,30,200/-  in installments stated in the letter. Thereafter, she  was informed  by letter dated November 1991 that cost  of construction had been increased, on account of the hike  in prices  of the  material, to  Rs.2,73,332/-  as against Rs.1,44,000/-;  and she  was  directed  to  pay  the balance amount  in the  manner indicated  in the  letter. On reference under  Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the District Judge  by his award and decree dated April 30, 1993 enhanced the  compensation payable  to the land acquired for the construction  of flats  under the  Self Finance  Scheme. Consequently, by  the letter dated April 12, 1993 respondent was called upon to pay the escalated charges. Respondent, as stated earlier,  approached the  High Court  challenging the demand.  The  High  Court  allowed  the  writ  petition  and directed the  appellant Authority  not to recover the amount from the  respondent. In  view of  the letter written by the appellant on  two occasions  earlier, the  only question is: whether the  High Court  is right  in its  direction not  to recover  the   amount  from  the  respondent?  The  admitted

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

position, as  stated earlier,  is that the land of a private owner was  acquired under  the Land  Acquisition Act for the Self Finance Scheme. As a matter of fact, when scheme is for construction and allotment of the houses to the allottees is initiated, allottee  is bound  to bear the cost of the value determined by  the civil  Court under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act  by award  and decree  or thereafter  if  an appeal is  filed and  further increase is made under Section 54 of  the Act. In this case, admittedly, on reference under Section 18,  the Court  had determined  the compensation  by award and  decree made  under Section  26 on April 30, 1993. Therefore, the  earlier demand  was required to be modified, consistent with  the escalation  in the cost of the value of the land as a result of determination of the compensation by the civil Court.      Shri Bagga,  learned counsel  for the respondent placed reliance on  the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  D.D.A.  vs. Pushpendra Kr.  Jain [JT  1994 (6) SC 292]. Therein the cost of the  value was  increased by  the DDA between the date of the draw  by the  DDA and  the date  of communication to the respondent and  the respondent  was called  upon to  pay the difference of the amount. In that case, the draw was made on October 12,  1990 and  the intimation of the successful draw in favour  of the  respondent and  allotment  was  given  on January  13,   1991.  In   the  meanwhile,  land  price  was unilaterally increased  by DDA.  Under those  circumstances, this Court  had held  that unless  otherwise provided in the scheme, the  allottee is liable to make payment of the price as on  the date  of  the  communication  of  the  letter  of allotment. The ratio therein is inapplicable to the facts in this case.  As held  earlier, the  allottee is  to bear  the burden of  not only the escalation in construction costs but also of  the escalation  of the  value of  the land when the Court enhanced the compensation under provisions of the Land Acquisition Act  at various stages. Otherwise, who would pay the escalation  cost value of the land etc. The appellant is not a private builder for profit.      The appeals  are accordingly  allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.