KM. PREETA SINGH ETC.

A v.

HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.

APRIL 22, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, .TJ.] B

Punjab Urban Estates (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965:

Rules 2(aa), 4( 1}-Allotment of Site-Demand of additional price-Power of Development authority-Held, Allottee liable to pay sale price C including additional price, and cost of improvement-E11tire e:i.penditure i11cu1Ted to be bome by allottees--Development authoiiry-Harya11a Urba11 Housing Scheme.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7759 of 1996 Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.5.91 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 16511 of 1990 .

Subodh Markandaya and Mrs. Chitra Markandeya for the Appel- Janis.

Ms. Indu Malhotra (D.B. Vohra) (NP) for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

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. l lakh and odd as additional amount as intimated in their calculation G 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 Hous- H

622 SUPREME COl:RT REPORTS 11996] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A ing Scheme in Sector 21, Gurgaon. Thereafter, the appeJlants 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 Siles) 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 Act, 1894 and the amount of cost incurred by the State Government in respect of such reference.

Explanation cm; sagcs that "for the purposes of this clause and sub-rule (l) of Rule 4, the expression "the court" means the court as defined in Clames ( d) of Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and D 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 E 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 Lhat the respondent-HUDA is only a statutory body for catering to the housing requirement of the persons eligible to claim for allotment. They dCquire the land, develop it and construct buildings and

F 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 develupment thereon is required to be borne by the allottees \vhcn th~ sites or the buildings sold after the development are offered on the date of the sale in a<.:cunJance \Vith thr; regulation~ and abo condition~ of ale-". It is s1; en that in the notice dated r'\ugust 9, 19901 the total area, G .net .irca, the payable amount for the gross acreage, the acreage left for the

devdupmental purpose, balance recoverable from the plot holders, plottable area have been given for each of the area and recovery rate also has been mentioned under the said notice. Under these c1rcumstances, there is no ambiguity left in the calculations. If, at all, the appellants had got any H doubt, they would have approached the authority and sought for further

PREETASINGHv. H.U.DA 623

information. It is not the case that they had sought the information um! the A 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.

G.N.

Appeals dismissed.