Case Note & Summary
Background: The dispute arose from allotment of sites by Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), a statutory body constituted to cater to housing requirements of eligible persons. The appellants were allottees under the Haryana Urban Development Housing Scheme in Sector 21, Gurgaon. Facts: Initially, the appellants paid the provisional amount calculated at the rate of cost incurred in the scheme. Subsequently, HUDA issued a calculation memo dated 9 August 1990 directing payment of an additional amount of Rs. 1 lakh and odd. The appellants claimed that they had already paid the original demand and that HUDA had no power to demand further amounts. Legal Issues: The core question was whether HUDA committed any illegality in demanding the additional amount. Arguments: The appellants contended that HUDA lacked authority to demand additional payment after the original payment had been made. HUDA relied on the Punjab Urban Estates (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965, particularly Section 2(aa) defining 'additional price' and Rule 4 dealing with sale price, to argue that allottees are liable for enhanced compensation and development costs. Court's Analysis: The Court examined Section 2(aa), which defines additional price as such sum of money as may be determined by the State Government having regard to the amount of compensation by which the compensation awarded by the Collector 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. The Explanation clarified that the expression 'court' includes the court as defined in clause (d) of Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and where an appeal is filed, the appellate court. The Court held that a conjoint reading of the rules clearly indicates that the 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 emphasized that HUDA, as a statutory body, acquires land, develops it, and constructs buildings, and the entire expenditure incurred in connection with acquisition of land and development thereon is required to be borne by the allottees when the sites or buildings sold after the development are offered on the date of sale in accordance with regulations and conditions of sale. The Court also noted that the notice dated 9 August 1990 contained details of total area, net area, payable amount for gross acreage, acreage left for developmental purpose, balance recoverable from plot holders, plot-table area and recovery rate, leaving no ambiguity in the calculations. If the allottees had any doubt, they should have approached the authority and sought further information, but it was not their case that they sought information and the same was withheld. Decision: The Supreme Court found no illegality in the action taken by HUDA and upheld the High Court's refusal to interfere with the order. The appeals were dismissed with no costs.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Allotment of Sites - Additional Price Liability - Punjab Urban Estates (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965, Section 2(aa), Rule 4 - The appellants challenged a demand by Haryana Urban Development Authority for payment of additional amount after initial payment for plots in Sector 21 Gurgaon under Haryana Urban Development Housing Scheme. The Court held that the rules define additional price to include enhanced compensation and cost of reference, and that the allottee is liable to pay sale price including additional price and cost of improvement. The Court also found that the demand notice dated 9 August 1990 contained sufficient calculation details and no illegality. Held that the appeals are dismissed with no costs (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents committed any illegality in directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh and odd as additional amount as intimated in their calculation memo dated August 9, 1990.
Final Decision
Appeals dismissed; no costs. The Supreme Court held no illegality in the action taken by the respondents and upheld the High Court's refusal to interfere.
Law Points
- Allottee liable to pay sale price including additional price and cost incurred and cost of improvement
- additional price under Section 2(aa) of Punjab Urban Estates (Sale of Sites) Rules
- 1965 includes enhanced compensation and cost of reference
- entire acquisition and development expenditure to be borne by allottees
- demand notice with detailed calculations not ambiguous
- allottee should seek clarification if any doubt
