Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ved Parkash And Ors. vs The Chief Administrator, Housing Board ... on 8 February, 2002
Author: H.S. Bedi
Bench: H.S. Bedi
JUDGMENT H.S. Bedi, J.
1. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 7397 of 1993 and 13490 of 1994 as common questions of law and fact are involved.
2. The facts have been taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 7397 of 1993.
The respondent-Chandigarh Housing Board gave an advertisement, copy appended as Annexure P-1, inviting applications for allotment of houses in village Nangal Sodhian. The tentative price of the houses for the low income group was advertised as being Rs. 25,000/- with the monthly instalment being Rs. 160/-. The respondents also published a booklet (Annexure P-2) enclosing an application form for the registration of applicants and fixing Rs. 30,000/- as the tentative price with a monthly instalment of Rs. 273/- being payable after allotment. The sketch plan of the proposed houses was also made available to the petitioners detailing the various facilities that were to be provided to the successful applicants. On the draw of lots for the low income group category, the petitioners were (vide Annexure P-4) called upon to pay an additional amount of Rs. 1136/- on account of enhancement in the land compensation for the land. The petitioners accepted the allotment and took possession of their houses and also executed Hire Purchase Agreements. Vide Annexurb P-9 dated 29.3.1993, the petitioners were again called upon to deposit a sum for Rs. 9.80 per square yards towards enhanced land compensation and subsequently, the petitioners, vide letters dated 31.1.992 and 29.3.1993 Annexures P-10 and P-11 respectively, were again called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 2.40 per square yard and Rs. 1.10 per square yard respectively as additional amount towards these enhanced land compensation. The grievance of the petitioners is that vide Annexure P-11 dated 29.3.1993, the petitioners have been called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 2288 due to the arbitration award pertaining to their houses with the threat that if the amount was not paid within 30 days a penalty upto 25% of the amount would be imposed. The petitioner have impugned the communications Annexures P-4 and P-9 to P-12.
3. A reply has been filed by the respondents. It has been submitted that at the time of the advertisement of the scheme, the cost had been determined on the basis of rough cost estimates, whereas at the time of allotment, the tentative price was determined on the basis of actual construction cost. It has also been pleaded that the additional amount claimed from the petitioners was on account of the escalation of the price as a result of judicial pronouncements of the Courts and as such, this amount too was payable by the petitioners. It has also been pleaded that the amount of arbitration award was also payable as per Clause 2-W of the Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement.
4. It is clear from Annexure P-l that the advertisement first issued had given only a tentative price, and that the firm price had been given in Annexure P-2, the booklet including the application form on which the petitioners had made their applications. The petitioners, were therefore, bound by the stipulations contained in the brochure Annexure P-2. It is also clear from Annexure P-4 dated 22.6.1990 which is the letter of allotment in favour of petitioner-Ved Parkash that one of the conditions of allotment was that after the receipt of the final bills for the construction of tenements or as the result of an award in arbitration proceedings etc., the board was entitled to revise the price already specified, and that the purchaser would be bound to pay this amount as well though the price would not be increased after 7 years of the allotment except in case of an escalation due to judicial orders or Arbitrators awards.lt is also clear from the record and from Clause 2-W of the Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement that a similar stipulation had been provided therein.
5. The respondents have also denied the allegation that the construction was not according to specifications. No material has come on record to hold otherwise.
6. No merit. Dismissed.