1. Dispute regarding the legality of demanding additional payment for allotted sites under the Punjab Urban Estates (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 831
1996(4) Supreme 318
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Preeta Singh etc. -Appellants
versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7759 of 1996
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 6729 of 1994)
with
Civil Appeal No. 1066 of 1992
Decided on 22-4-1996
Important Points
Allottees are liable to pay the 'additional price' as defined under the Punjab Urban Estates (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965, including enhanced compensation awarded by courts under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and development costs, as the entire expenditure for land acquisition and development must be borne by allottees.
Subject
Land Acquisition - Additional Price and Cost of Development
Act Referred
PUNJAB URBAN ESTATES SALE OF SITES RULES: R.4, R.2(a)(a)
Headnote
Punjab Urban Estates (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965-Section 2(aa)-Allotment of sites in Housing Scheme -Pricing-Provisional amount calculated at the rate of cost incurred in the scheme-Additional amount demand-Allottees are liable to pay it-High Court was right in refusing to interfere with demand order.
Held : 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 is to be remembered that the respondent-HUDA is only a statutory body for catering to the housing requirement of the persons eligible to claim for allotment. They acquire the land, develop it and construct buildings and 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 development thereon is required to be borne by the allottees when the sites or the buildings sold after the development are offered on the date of the sale in accordance with the regulations and also conditions of sale. It is seen that in the notice dated August 9, 1990, the total area, net area, the payable amount for the gross acreage, the acreage left for the developmental purpose, balance recoverable from the plot holders, plot-table area have been given for each of the area and recovery rate also has been mentioned under the said notice. Under these circumstances, there is no ambiguity left in the calculations. (Para 5)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a statutory authority has the power to demand additional payment from allottees after the original demand has been satisfied. (Para 2 )
3. Allottees must bear the entire expenditure for land acquisition and development, and the authority's detailed calculation memo left no ambiguity. (Para 5 )
4. Allottees are liable for the sale price, including additional price and development costs, as defined under the Punjab Urban Estates (Sale of Sites) Rules. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
5. Appeals dismissed; the High Court's refusal to interfere with the order was upheld. (Para 5 )
6. What constitutes additional price under the Punjab Urban Estates (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965?
Additional price is the sum determined by the State Government based on the enhanced compensation awarded by a court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the costs incurred by the State Government in respect of such reference. (Para 3 , 4 )
7. Are allottees of sites developed by a statutory housing body liable for development and acquisition costs?
Yes, allottees are liable to pay the sale price, which includes the additional price, costs incurred by the statutory body for land acquisition, and the cost of site improvement. (Para 5 )
8. Can a statutory authority demand additional payment after the initial provisional amount is paid?
Yes, provided the demand is based on the rules governing the sale of sites and the calculations for the additional amount are clearly provided to the allottees. (Para 2 , 5 )
ORDER
Delay condoned.
Leave granted in the Special Leave Petition.
2. The question that arises for consideration is: whether the respondents have 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? 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 Housing Scheme in Sector 21, Gurgaon. Thereafter, the appellants 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.
3. Section 2(aa) of the Punjab Urban Estates (Sale of Sites) 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.
4. Explanation envisages that "for the purposes of this clause and sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 , the expression "the court" means the court as defined in clauses (d) of Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and where an appeal is filed, the appellate court."
Sale price has been absorbed in Rule 4 .
5. A conjoint reading of the above rules would clearly indicate 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 is to be remembered that the respondent-HUDA is only a statutory body for catering to the housing requirement of the persons eligible to claim for allotment. They acquire the land, develop it and construct buildings and 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 development thereon is required to be borne by the allottees when the sites or the buildings sold after the development are offered on the date of the sale in accordance with the regulations and also conditions of sale. It is seen that in the notice dated August 9, 1990, the total area, net area, the payable amount for the gross acreage, the acreage left for the developmental purpose, balance recoverable from the plot holders, plot-table area have been given for each of the area and recovery rate also has been mentioned under the said notice. Under these circumstances, there is no ambiguity left in the calculations. If, at all, the appellants had got any doubt, they would have approached the authority and sought for further information. It is not the case that they had sought the information and the 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.
Appeals dismissed.
********
