Development Authority Vs. Asha Rani  INSC 320 (26 February 1996)
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
1996 AIR 1591 JT 1996 (3) 400 1996 SCALE (2)841
APPEAL NO. 4389 OF 1996 ----------------------------- (Arising out of SLP (C)
No.18293 of 1995)
O R D
have heard the counsel on both sides.
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.
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
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:
the High Court is right in its direction not to recover the amount from the
respondent? The admitted 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.
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.
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.
appeals are accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside. The
writ petition stands dismissed.