VERY IMPORTANT POINT
In view of Clauses 13 and 14 in the Brochure of DDA s Registration Scheme on new Pattern-1979 it has right to escalate the prices in 1990 and High Court cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter of pricing/costing of flats, including escalation of cost of land, cost of construction of MIG, LIG and Janta flats. The impugned revision by Lt. Governor, Delhi is thus neither illegal nor arbitrary.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Article 226-DDA formulated a scheme known as Registration Scheme on New Pattern 1979 -Cl. 13 giving tentative prices of MIG, LIG and Janta flats indicated Cl. 14 providing escalation clause-Revised in 1990-Approved by Lt. Governor, Delhi-Challenge in writ petition-D.B. quashed-Appeals against to Supreme Court-In another writ petition D.B. of High Court took different view-Referred to Full Bench-Full Bench upheld revision of price-Whether under Article 226 High Court has limited jurisdiction as held by F.B. or it can interfere as held by D.B. under appeal and is supported by respondents in present appeals? (the former)-Is judgment of Lt. Governor Delhi Arbitrary? (No)-Appeal allowed.
Held : The contention put forth by the counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted either on facts or in law. Keeping in mind the divergence of views expressed by the co-equal benches the matter was referred to the Full Bench. The Full Bench expressed the view that revision of price by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi in the year 1991 was neither arbitrary nor illegal, in the other words, the price fixed by the Lieutenant Governor in the year 1991 was upheld whereas the Division Bench in the impugned judgment has taken a dramatically opposite view. In the impugned judgment it has been held that the price fixed by the Lt. Governor in the year 1991 was arbitrary and illegal. The Court after fixing a tentative price directed to constitute an Expert Committee to go into the question of pricing and determine the same after taking the land rate at Rs. 62/- per sq. meter and actual cost of construction made by it for the construction of the flats. The Full Bench did not approve the view expressed by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment, it simply stated that the Division Bench may have come to this conclusion because the Authority failed to place the relevant material before the Court to explain how the price fixation had been done and on what basis. Court queries in this behalf were not answered, which led to the belief that the DDA was suppressing something and had acted arbitrarily to the prejudice of the writ petitioners. The relevant material had been placed before the larger Bench and the Bench after taking into consideration the material placed before it came to the conclusion that the price fixed by the Lt. Governor of Delhi was neither arbitrary nor illegal. The inconsistency of the views expressed in the impugned judgment and the larger Bench of Delhi High Court is self evident. Delhi High Court has resolved the conflict of views expressed by the Division Benches of co-equal strength by constituting a larger Bench and the special leave filed against the judgment of the larger Bench has already been dismissed. Inconsistency and contradiction in the orders passed by the same Court on the same point regarding the same scheme cannot be allowed to be continued or perpetuated. If contention of the learned counsel is accepted then an anomalous situation would arise by which the price fixed for few of the MIG flats in the scheme would be much less than the price fixed for the remaining flats allotted in the same year which cannot be permitted. The law laid down by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India and the law laid down by a High Court is binding on all courts within its jurisdiction. It is a cardinal principle of rule of law that inconsistency and contradiction in the orders has to be avoided at all costs to bring about a certainty in the mind of the Subordinate courts and the litigant -public. This principle would stand violated in case two binding principles on the same point of the same Court are allowed to operate simultaneously. We put an end to the controversy by setting aside the impugned judgment and dispose of the writ petitions filed by the respondents in terms of the order passed by the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Sheelawanti & Ors. decided on 3rd February, 1995. We agree with the view expressed by the larger Bench in Sheelawanti & Ors. Case. The appeals, accordingly, stand disposed of with no order as to costs. (Paras 17 to 20)

JUDGMENT

Bhan, J.-Appellant-Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority ) formulated a Scheme known as "Registration Scheme on New Pattern- 1979" (for short the Scheme ) to build and sell MIG/LIG and Janta flats so as to be within the reach of the common man.

2. Registration for the scheme opened on 1st September, 1979. In the scheme the illustrated price of various categories of flats were mentioned. The likely cost of MIG flats with which we are concerned in these appeals was indicated to be Rs. 42,000/-. On 30th of September, 1979, registration was closed. About 1,70,000 persons registered themselves in the scheme. In 1981, allotment started taking place by draw of lots based on randomised allotment. The cost of flats was worked out after taking into account the prevailing rate of land by the Lt. Governor. The cost of construction was worked out by dividing the cost incurred in construction of a pocket of flats by a number of flats in that pocket. Clauses 13 & 14 of the brochure are as follows:

"Clause 13. The plinth area of the flats to be constructed under new pattern is likely to be as under:-

MIG Between 60 to 65 Sq. Mtrs.

LIG About 38 Sq. Mtrs.

Janta Upto 24 Sq. Mtrs.

The accommodation in the flats under different categories will be as under:-

MIG One Living Room, 2 Bed Rooms, Kitchen, Bath Room and W.C. and Open Court-yard.

LIG 2 Rooms, Kitchen, Bath Room and W.C.

Janta One room, Kitchen, Bath Room and W.C.

The likely cost of flats constructed under this scheme will be as under:-

MIG Rs. 42,000/-

LIG Rs. 18,000/-

Janta Rs. 8,000/-

The prices are indicative and do not represent the final cost.

14. It may please be noted that the plinth area of the flats indicated and the estimated prices mentioned in the brochure are illustrative and are subject to revision/modification depending upon the exigencies or lay out cost of construction etc."

[Emphasis supplied]

3. Due to certain reasons with which we are not concerned at the moment, the allotments could not be made. On 6th of December, 1990 fresh rates of land to be taken into account for costing of flats were approved by the Lt. Governor. Whereas in 1979 the prevailing land rate was fixed at Rs. 62/- per sq. meter, the same was revised in 1990 to Rs. 870/- per sq. meter for MIG flats, Rs. 660/- per sq. meter for LIG flats and Rs. 500/- per sq. meter for EWS (Janata flats). The increased rate was approved after taking into consideration all the relevant factors involved.

4. The respondents-writ petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the respondents ) whose turn for allotment came in 1991 were allotted flats in Jahangirpuri. The demand letters were sent to them. Respondents filed the writ petition No. 3267 of 1991 along with Civil Writ Nos. 3198, 3456, 3645, 3795 and 3796 of 1991 respectively in Delhi High Court challenging the rate at which the flats were being allotted. The case put up by them was that the amount being charged for the flats was much higher than what was indicated in the scheme itself.

5. Writ Petition Nos. 3876 of 1992 titled Prem Chand vs. Union of India & Anr., CWP 2787 of 1990 J.K. Dhingra vs. DDA, CWP 728 of 1991 Vinod Kumar Gupta vs. DDA, and CWP 1327 of 1991 Maha Nand Sharma vs. DDA also filed on the same grounds and for the same were dismissed on 24th May, 1993, 16th May, 1991, 22nd October, 1991 and 15th January, 1992, respectively.

6. Writ Petitions filed by the respondents were allowed by the High Court despite the fact that several similar writ petitions had already been dismissed on merits. By the impugned judgment the High Court struck down the revision in the rate of land. The Authority was directed to make allotment of flats at a tentative price of four and a half time of the price offered in the year 1979. Further the Authority was directed to constitute an Expert Committee to go into the costing of the flats taking the land rate at Rs. 62/- per sq. meter. The Expert Committee was to work out

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 830

Cases Referred (2)