Full Judgment Text
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.
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.