Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
AWASAN MANDAL PARIJAT UCHAYAWARG SANGHARSH SAMITITHROUGH PRE
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/03/1997
BENCH:
M.K. MUKHERJEE, S.P. KURDUKAR
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
S.P. Kurdukar, J.
Leave granted.
2. The dispute in all these connected civil appeals is
confined to the cost of the land. The appellants in these
appeals belonged to the second, third and fourth quarter of
allotment of the houses Board and the copy thereof was made
available to the court during the course of hearing. These
costing principles were made applicable from 1st April, 1988
and no dispute was raised by any of the parties at any
stage.
3. The appellants who were the writ petitioners in the
High Court alleged that the houses for the applicants of the
first and second quarter were ready by November, 1990 and
the letters of allotment were accordingly issued to the
applicants of both these quarters on or about January 29,
1991. The grievance of the appellants who were the
applicants of the second quarter was that possession of the
houses were given to the allottees of the first quarter in
March, 1991, but, however, the possession of the houses in
respect of the second quarter was given to the appellants
about nine months later i.e. in December, 1991. The houses
to be allotted to the applicants of the third and fourth
quarter were also ready much before March, 1992 and
accordingly the allotment letters were issued to them in
November, 1992 issued demand cum possession letters to them.
It was the grievance of the appellants before the courts
below that the Rajasthan Housing Board had discriminated
them while determining the cost of the land in respect of
all these four quarters. For the first quarter, the cost of
the land was determined at Rs. 38,178/- whereas the land
cost charged from the allottees of the second, third and
fought quarters was increased to Rs. 72,765/-. They also
made a grievance as regards the increase in the construction
cost but, however, that issue does not survive in these
appeals. The appellants made representations to the
Rajasthan Housing Board complaining about the discriminatory
treatment meted out to them while determining the cost of
lands vi-a-vis the applicants of the first quarter.
According to them, land costing should not differ as the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
chunk of the land was purchased in one lot and, therefore,
there was no justification to increase the land cost in
fourth quarters. They further made a grievance that for no
fault of theirs, if the development of the land and
construction of the houses thereof were delayed by the
Rajasthan Housing Board, they should not be made to pay
higher land cost. They, therefore, prayed that the land cost
should be the same in respect of second, third and fourth
quarters of 1988 as fixed for the allottees of the first
quarter of 1988. This request of the appellants was turned
down by the Rajasthan Housing Board by relying upon the
costing principles which they had adopted. The appellants,
therefore, filed there separate writ petitions challenging
the action of the Rajasthan Housing Board.
4. The first respondent-the Rajasthan Housing Board filed
the detailed reply justifying the increase in the cost of
the land in respect of second, third and fourth quarter and
pleaded that they have strictly adhered to the costing
principles which they have applied uniformly . They further
pleaded that cause for delay in completing the construction
of the houses was beyond their control. In the meantime, the
development cost also increased and accordingly they had no
option but to refix the land cost in accordance with the
costing principles which they had followed. Neither any
discrimination while fixing the land cost was resorted to
nor any profit was made by them by enhancing the land cost.
There is no substance in any of the contentions raised on
behalf of the appellants/writ petitioners and, therefore, on
relief could be granted to them.
5. Both the parties in support of their rival contentions
produced several documents before the learned Single Judge.
After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge. After
hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge by his common
judgment dated 16th November, 1992 disposed of all the writ
petitions holding that the land of all the four quarters of
1988 had been utilised by March, 1991 and, therefore, there
was no justification for charging higher land cost from the
allottees of the second, third and fourth quarter
(appellants). The learned Single Judge, however, held that
the Housing Board had not violated the rules framed by it on
9th January, 1988. It further held that the land cost forms
a distinct and different head from "Developmental Cost" and
that paragraph 6 of the scheme with permitted increase in
cost. As regards the increase in the construction to the
appellants because it involved disputed questions of facts
which cannot be gone into in the writ petition. Aggrieved by
this judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge,
both the contesting parties filed Special Appeals in the
Rajasthan High Court and the learned Division Bench after
hearing counsel for the parties vide it’s judgment and order
dated August 8, 1995 allowed special appeal Nos. 12/93 and
14/93 filed by the Rajasthan Housing Board and others and
dismissed the special appeals Nos. 83/93, 84/93 and 85/93
filed by the writ petitioners/appellants before us. The net
result, therefore is that the writ petitions filed by the
appellants came to be dismissed.
6. Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, Learned Senior Counsel appearing in
support of these appeals urged that the Rajasthan Housing
Board had failed to give sustainable reasons as to why the
land cost should be different in respect of allottees of
second, third and fourth quarter then the allottees of the
first quarter, particularly, when it is undisputed that
housed of the first quarter as also of the second quarter
were ready much before 29th January, 1991. The houses in
respect of both these quarters were constructed
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
simultaneously and if this be so, there was no justification
whatsoever to increase the land cost and issue demand
notices thereof to increase the allottees of the second
quarter. As regards allottees of the third and fourth
quarter, counsel urged that when the entire chunk of the
land was purchased at one time for the scheme, there was no
question of increasing the land cost in respect of second,
third and fourth quarter houses. the land was the same but
while determining the land cost in respect of these three
quarters, an artificial enhanced price structure thereof was
resorted to without any sustainable justification. Counsel,
therefore, urged that there is patent discrimination and
violation of the Rules and Regulations framed by the Board
while promoting the scheme. Counsel drew our attention to
the reasoning the scheme. Counsel drew our attention to the
reasoning the scheme. Counsel drew our attention to the
reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge and urged that
the same was supported by Rule 4.1.1. and there was no
reason whatsoever for the Division Bench to upset the said
reasoning.
7. Mr. Ganguli, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Rajasthan Housing Board took us through the brochure and the
relevant Rules and Regulations framed by the Rajasthan
Housing Board in respect of costing principles. He drew our
attention to the Rules and in particular to the caption
titled as " Cost of Undeveloped Plan" containing various
Rules from 4.1 to 4.28. He reiterated that the Rajasthan
Housing Board had worked out the land cost in respect of the
first, second, third and fourth quarter in terms of these
rules and there is nothing on the record to indicate that
the Rajasthan Housing Board had tried to make any profit by
increasing land cost. He urged that the Rajasthan Housing
Board had to borrow loans from various financial
institutions on interest and in order to square up all
developmental charges, construction, interest etc., it was
necessitated to increase the land cost in respect of second,
third and fourth quarter. He further urged that under the
brochure itself, it was made quite clear that the price of
houses itself, it was made quite clear that the price of
houses in respect of these four quarters will be determined
at the time of issuance of letter of allotment and handing
over of possession with reference to the quarter in which
such letter of allotment/possession would be issued. The
appellants having accepted the terms and conditions set out
in the brochure, they cannot be now heard to say that the
Rajasthan Housing Board has resorted to the discrimination
thereby offending Article 14 of the Constitution while
fixing the land cost differently in respect of second, third
and fourth quitter. Counsel, therefore, urged that the view
taken by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court is
the correct view and cannot be assailed on any premiss.
8. We have given our careful thought to the rival
contention raised before us and we find that the impugned
judgment does not suffer from any infirmity. The Rajasthan
Housing Board in its brochure as well as in its Rules and
Regulations had made it clear that the cost of the house
would differ for each quarter depending upon in which
quarter the latter of allotment/possession would be issued
to the allottee. How the cost of a house would be worked out
is provided under Rule 4.1. to 4.28 falling under the
caption "Cost of Undeveloped Land." Under para 4.2.1., the
cost of development was determined by the Rajasthan Housing
Board by applying the costing principles in the following
manners:-
i) Levellingg & dressing of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
ground;
ii) Construction of bituminous
roads;
iii) Cost of drains & culverts;
iv) Cost of water supply lines;
v) Cost of electric lines;
vi) Cost of sewer lines
vii) Cost of street lights;
viii) Costs of plantation,
horticulture & parks;
ix) Misc.
In addition to the above heads, the cost of development
shall also include the cost of constructions of the
following items:-
i) Primary School/Higher
Secondary School
ii) Hospital/Dispensary
iii) Community Centres
The total expenditure on development is worked out on
the basis of actual expenditure plus anticipated
expenditure. In paragraph 11 to 16 of the written statement
filed by the Housing Board, it has indicated as to how the
construction cost was worked out and how the land cost was
required to be enhanced to Rs. 315/- per square metre. After
going through the pleadings of the parties in his behalf, we
are of the opinion that the land cost which was determined
of the Housing Board is in consonance with the brochure and
the costing principles reflected in paragraphs 4.1 to 4.1.5,
4.2.1, 4.2.3, 4.2.5 and 4.2.6. It was urged on behalf of the
appellants that although construction of the houses of the
first and second quarter was completed when the possession
of the houses was allotted to the allotted of first quarter
and therefore, there was no justification in not issuing the
letters of allotment to the allotted of second quarter. This
contention has no merit because the development word was yet
to be completed and, consequently the possession thereof was
delayed by about nine months. Since the allotment letters of
the houses of second quarter fell during the financial year
1990-91, the land cost stood enhanced in view of the costing
principles. The same was true in respect of third and fourth
quarter houses as the letters of allotment were issued in
the financial year 1991-92 on different dates i.e. 9th
December, 1991 and 5th February, 1992 respectively. The
construction of the construction of the houses in respect of
second and third quarters was delayed beyond the control of
the Housing Board. Consequently, the land cost was required
to be re-determined on the basis of costing principles. All
these factors were very much known to the Rajasthan Housing
Board and they were fully aware of the terms and conditions
set out in the brochure and other relevant Rules and
Regulations. We have carefully considered the contentions
raised on behalf of the parties in this behalf and we find
that the Rajasthan Housing Board had committed on error
while determining the land cost differently in respect of
second, third and fourth quarter based on the costing
principles. It also needs to be stated that the Rajasthan
Housing Board had borrowed huge sums from various financial
institutions for which it was required to pay the interest
thereon. The appellants are unable to demonstrate that the
land cost determined by the Rajasthan Housing Board was in
violation of any of the terms and terms and conditions
mentioned in the brochure and/or Rules or Regulations or it
had deviated from the Board’s policy of providing houses on
profit on loss basis.
9. For the foregoing conclusions, we are of the opinion
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
that all these appeals are devoid of merits and accordingly
dismissed. In the circumstances of this case, the parties
are directed to their own costs.