Preeta
Singh Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors [1996] INSC 587 (22 April 1996)
Ramaswamy,
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (5) 634 1996 SCALE (4)443
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
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.
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.
Back
Pages: 1 2