ORDER

We thought that with the two orders passed by this Court one dated 7.4.1997 and the other 30.3.1998 there would be no more controversy between the prospective allottees (who are the petitioners in all these interlocutory applications) and the Land Developer (who is also styled as "coloniser" or "owner" etc.). When the prospective allottees were on the threshold of realising their dream of getting possession of the plots applied for by them, they are confronted with a new situation as they got a letter addressed by the Land Development dated 15.4.1998 requiring each of them to pay a total amount of Rs. 2,550/- per square yard (for the plots included in phase I) or Rs. 2,390/- per square yard (for the plots included in phase II). The said letter directed them to pay the amount after crediting the amount already remitted. On the receipt of the said letter the petitioners have approached this Court once again with the grievance that the said demand is in violation of the orders passed by this Court dated 7.4.97 and 30.3.98.

2. It is true that this Court has resolved the controversy between the parties relating the "the cost of land" by order dated 7.4.97. It is also true that this court resolved the dispute between the parties regarding the External Development charges and/or the Internal Development charges as for the plots in Phase I and Phase II (vide order dated 30.3.98).

3. The contention advanced by Shri. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel on behalf of Land Developer is the following :

4. By order dated 7.4.97 and 30.3.98 this Court has only resolved the (issue?) which then existed. The Court proceeded on the assumption that there would be no controversy regarding the other items payable by the petitioners. For other details of the above submission, learned counsel referred us to the scheme under? Which the land Developer could allot different plots to "would be allottees" As the scheme 20% according to the petitioners the said percentage is of the entire land covered by the scheme and according to the Land Developer the said percentage is of the entire plots) must be earmarked for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of the people. For easy reference the aforesaid 20% can be referred to hereinafter as the First Category. Out of the remaining, 25% shall be earmarked for allotment on "No profit no loss basis" (for convenience that can be referred to as Second Category). The balance 55% is permitted to be sold in open market for which the Land Developer is permitted to secure a profit not exceeding 15% of the total project cost (such can be referred to as the Third Category).

5. It is commonly argued by both sides that if the prospective allottees (who are petitioner) fall within the Second Category the Land Developer is not entitled to demand any more amount than what was fixed by this Court as per the orders dated 7.4.1997 and 30.3.1998. It is also conceded that if the petitioners fall in the Third Category the Land Developers is not obliged to confine to the amount specified in those two orders as he can demand additional amounts which are permitted according to the scheme. Shri Thakur and Shri Dholakia learned Senior counsel and other learned counsel appearing for different petitioners contended that all the petitioners would fall within Second Category and are, therefore, entitled to limit the amount strictly within the orders passed by this Court on 7.4.1997 and 30.3.1998. Shri Thakur further contended that some of the petitioners would even fall within the purview of the First Category in which case also they would be entitled to the same benefit as could be claimed by the allottees under the Second Category.

6. But Shri P.P. Rao advanced the contention that none of the petitioners would fall within either the First or Second Category as all of them fall only within the purview of the Third Category.

7. The area of controversy has been very much narrowed down by the aforesaid stand adopted by the learned counsel. However,