Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

As it is said that Civil Appeal No. 2809/86 arising out of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2274/84 is more comprehen- sive and the facts alleged therein may be taken as represen- tative in character, the facts relating to this appeal are briefly stated.

The Bareilly Development Authority (hereinafter re- ferred. as 'BDA'), the first appellant was constituted under Section 4 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 by the State Government for the purposes of development in the District of Bareilly., With a view to casing the acute housing problem in the said District, the BDA has undertaken construction of dwelling units for people belonging to different income groups styled as 'Lower Income Group', 'Middle Income Group', 'High Income Group' and the 'Economically Weaker Sections' (hereinafter referred as LIG, MIG, HIG and EWS respectively). The BDA issued' an advertisement offering to register names of intending applicants desirous of purchas- ing dwelling houses/flats in any one of the different income groups intended to be constructed by the BDA. In this appeal i.e. Civil Appeal No. 2809/86, the respondents 1 to 17 and 20 got themselves registered for allotment of flats in MIG scheme and respondents 18 and 19 in HIG scheme with the BDA in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the brochure issued by the Authority. The following table of the brochure shows the necessary details inclusive of the esti- mated cost for the different types of flats under various categories:

At this stage, all the respondents in these appeals approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitu- tion of India challenging the revised terms and conditions of the BDA on the ground that the petitioners were estopped from changing the conditions subject to which the respond- ents-applicants had applied for registration and deposited the initial payment in the year 1980; that the enhancement of cost of the house/flat amounting almost double of the estimated cost as shown in the brochure while inviting the applications and the increase of the monthly instalments are much beyond the means of the respondents and that this arbitrary and unilateral stand of the petitioners is to the prejudice of the respondents. On the above contentions, the respondents prayed in their respective petitions for issue of writ of mandamus directing the petitioners to maintain the allotment of the flats in their favour on the original terms and conditions, to hand over the possession of the same and further to restrain the petitioners from cancelling the original allotment. The above plea was resisted by the petitioners strongly relying on certain conditions contained in the brochure especially of clauses 12 and 13 as per which the BDA has reserved its discretion to change, alter or modify any of the terms and/or conditions of the allotment given in the brochure; that its decision would be final with regard to any matter concerning the registration and allot- ment and that the BDA has right to relax any condition in its discretion. It has been further contended that respond- ents barring 13, 17, 18 and 20 have given their written acceptance to the changed conditions as mentioned in the notice dated 19/20.1.1984 and as such they are not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. According to the petitioners the increase in the cost and the interest demanded from the respondents is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable and the High Court is not the proper forum for examining in detail the terms regarding payment of instal- ments in the circumstances of the present case, and if the respondents were not agreeable to the changed terms and conditions, they could as well resile from their consent. Finally, it was contended that the respondents are estopped from challenging the varied terms and conditions of the allotment after having consented.

The fact that all respondents had applied for registra- tion only on acceptance of terms and conditions contained in the brochure inclusive of Clauses 12 & 13 as well as the conditions mentioned in the Notes 1 and 2 of the 'General Information Table' of the said brochure, and further the respondents barring respondents Nos. 13, 17, 18 and 20 in MIG group gave their reply accepting the changed terms and conditions as per letter dated 19/20.1.1984 cannot be chal- lenged in view of the unassailable documentary evidence namely Annexures 'A', 'D', 'E' and 'F'.

Only on the basis of the written acceptance, the name of the first respondent was included in the draw and he has successful in getting the allotment of House No. 37 in MIG type which fact if clearly borne out by the letter from the second respondent (Annexure 'F'). In this connection, it is worthwhile to note that the first respondent, Shri Ajay Pal Singh is the Principal of Shri Guru Govind Singh Inter College and his educational qualifications are M.A. (Econ. & Hist.), B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B. From the above, it is clear that all the respondents who have sent their applications for registration with initial payment only after having fully understood the terms and conditions of the brochure inclu- sive of the Clauses 12 and 13 and Notes 1 and 2 of the General Information Table as per which the BDA has reserved its right to change, enhance or amend any of the terms and/or conditions as and when felt necessary, and also the right to relax any of the conditions at its discretion, and that the cost shown in the column 4 of the brochure was only estimated cost subject to increase or decrease according to the rise or fail in the price at the time of completion of the property. This is not only the case of the applicants of MIG scheme but also of the other applicants falling under the other categories i.e. HIG, LIG and EWS. So it cannot be said that there was a mis-statemennt or incorrect statement or an fraudulent concealment in the information supplied in the brochure published by the BDA on the strength of which all the applicants falling under the various categories applied and got their names registered. In such a circum- stance the respondents cannot be heard to say that the BDA has arbitrarily and unreasonably changed the terms and conditions of the brochure to the prejudice of the respond- ents.