A B C D E F G H a B C D E F G H 302 the Landowners the Housing Board
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
[2011] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 301 302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. ISHWAR DASS NASSA & ORS. A A the landowners the Housing Board is entitled to demand v. additional price from the allottees – Demand notices issued STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. by Estate Manager requiring the appellants to pay the (Civil Appeal No. 4211 of 2004) additional price accordingly quashed. DECEMBER 12, 2011 In response to an advertisement issued by the B B Haryana Housing Board in 1975, the appellants applied [G.S. SINGHVI & SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA for the houses proposed to be constructed at Sonepat JJ.] for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), Lower Income Housing Board Haryana (Allotment, Management and Group (LIG) and Middle Income Group (MIG). After Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1972 – Regulation 11(4) – scrutiny of the applications, the competent authority Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971 – s.74 – Housing Board’s C C allotted tenements of different categories to the power to revise the price of the tenements – Tenements had appellants. The appellants deposited the amount in been allotted to the appellants – They deposited amount in accordance with the stipulations contained in the accordance with the stipulations contained in the allotment allotment letters and executed Hire Purchase Tenancy letters and executed Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreements – Agreements. After about 10 years, the Estate Manager issued notices to D D After about 10 years, the Estate Manager, Sonepat the appellants and directed them to pay additional price in issued notices to the appellants and directed them to pay lieu of the enhanced compensation allegedly paid by the additional price in lieu of the enhanced compensation Improvement Trust for the land which was sold to the Housing allegedly paid by Improvement Trust, Sonepat for the Board – Demand of additional price – Justification – Held: In land which was sold to the Haryana Housing Board. The view of the bar contained in clause 2(w) of the Hire Purchase appellants challenged the notices by filing writ petitions E E Tenancy Agreement, the Housing Board could not revise the under Article 226 of the Constitution. They pleaded that price after 7 years of the allotment of tenement, irrespective in view of clause 2(w) of the Hire Purchase Tenancy of the justification for such revision –While preparing the Agreement, the Board cannot demand additional price format of Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement, the Housing after 7 years of the allotment of tenements. The Single Board must have taken into consideration various factors Judge of the High Court rejected the appellants’ which could lead to an increase in the cost of tenements and F F challenge to the demand of additional price. Letters consciously incorporated a prohibition against change in the patent appeals filed against the orders of the Single price after 7 years from the date of allotment of tenements – Judge were dismissed by High Court. Once the Housing Board, after due deliberations, incorporated a prohibition against change in the price after a period of 7 The question which therefore arose for consideration in the instant appeals was whether the Haryana Housing years from the allotment of tenements, there is no reason why G G it should not be asked to honour the commitment made to Board could ignore the time limit of 7 years specified in the allottees – The Single Judge and the Division Bench of clause 2(w) of the Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement the High Court were not right in deciding the writ petitions and executed by the appellants as per the requirement of the writ appeals on the premise that once the cost of land gets Regulation 11(4) of the Housing Board Haryana increased on account of payment of higher compensation to (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) 301 H H Regulations, 1972 framed by the Haryana Housing Board ISHWAR DASS NASSA & ORS. v. STATE OF 303 304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. HARYANA & ORS. in exercise of the power conferred upon it under Section A A Board accorded ex post facto sanction for payment of 74 of the Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971 and demand Rs.53,98,091/- to Improvement Trust, Sonepat. [Para 10] additional price from them after 10 years of the allotment [315-H; 316-A-E] of tenements. 1.2. While preparing the format of Hire Purchase Allowing the appeals, the Court Tenancy Agreement, the Board must have taken into B B consideration various factors which could lead to an HELD:1.1. A conjoint reading of the allotment letter increase in the cost of tenements and consciously and clause 2 (w) of the Hire Purchase Tenancy incorporated a prohibition against change in the price Agreement, which every allottee is required to execute after 7 years from the date of allotment of tenements. The makes it clear that the price of the tenement specified in rationale of this embargo was that once the allottee pays the allotment letter is tentative and the Board can revise C C the total price, he may not be subjected to the burden of the price after receiving final bills representing the cost additional cost after a number of years. Surely, of construction or if as a result of an order of the Court adjudication of the landowners’ claim for higher or an award made by the Arbitrator it is required to pay compensation is not within the domain of the Board or higher cost for the land used for construction of the the allottees but once the Board has, after due tenements. In either case, the allottee is bound to pay the deliberations, incorporated a prohibition against change additional amount which would represent the final price D D in the price after a period of 7 years from the allotment of of the tenement. If the cost of land is enhanced for any tenements, there is no reason why it should not be asked other similar reason then too the Board can revise the to honour the commitment made to the allottees that they price and ask the allottees to pay additional price. In a will not live under the fear of being asked to pay additional given case, the Board may revise the tentative price more price after an indefinite period. Unfortunately, the Single than once and the allottees are bound to share the E E Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court did not burden of additional cost. However, in these cases, the give due weightage to the prohibition contained in Clause Board’s power to revise the price of the tenements is 2(w) of the Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement and hedged with the limitation of 7 years contained in clause negatived the appellants’ challenge to the demand of 2(w) of the Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement. That additional price by assuming that the Board is vested with clause contained an express bar against the change in F F the power to revise the price at any time. The use of the price after 7 years of the allotment of tenement. To put it expression ‘or enhancement in cost of land on any differently, in view of the bar contained in clause 2(w) of account’ after the expression ‘the receipt of the final bill the Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement, the Board could for the construction of tenements or as the result of land not revise the price after 7 years of the allotment of award or arbitration proceeding’ shows that while framing tenement, irrespective of the justification for such the regulations, the Board had kept in view all the revision. The Board’s understanding of the prohibition G G eventualities which could lead to an increase in the cost contained in clause 2 (w) of the Hire Purchase Tenancy of land made available for construction of the tenements Agreement is evinced from Resolution dated 10.5.1989 and yet it thought proper to put an embargo against the wherein it was clearly mentioned that enhanced cost is revision of price after 7 years. Therefore, the Single Judge not to be recovered from the allottees after 7 years from and the Division Bench of the High Court were not right the date of allotment. This is also the reason why the H H in deciding the writ petitions and the writ appeals on the ISHWAR DASS NASSA & ORS. v. STATE OF 305 306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. HARYANA & ORS. premise that once the cost of land gets increased on A A quashing the demand of additional price was upheld. account of payment of higher compensation to the 2. In response to an advertisement issued by the Board in landowners the Board is entitled to demand additional 1975, the appellants applied for the houses proposed to be price from the allottees. [Para 11] [316-F-H; 317-A-E] constructed at Sonepat for Economically Weaker Sections 1.3. The impugned order as also the one passed by (EWS), Lower Income Group (LIG) and Middle Income Group the Single Judge are set aside and the demand notices B B (MIG). After scrutiny of the applications, the competent authority issued by Estate Manager, Sonepat requiring the allotted tenements of different categories to the appellants. The appellants to pay the additional price are quashed. [Para allotment letters were issued in their favour in November/ 12] [317-F] December 1978. For the sake of reference, the allotment letter issued in favour of one of the appellants, namely, Dharam Pal is CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4211 reproduced below: of 2004. C C “HOUSING BOARD HARYANA From the Judgment & Order dated 7.8.2000 of the High HOUSING BOARD COLONY Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in L.P.A.No.