Full Judgment Text
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.