JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. This order will dispose of bunch of appeals bearing Civil Appeal Nos. 2950-2952 of 2023. The common judgment of the High Court vide which five Regular Second Appeals were decided has been impugned.

2. From the matters listed before this Court, it is evident that the judgment of the High Court has been challenged only in R.S.A. Nos. 759, 760 and 864 of 2008 and there are no appeals filed in R.S.A. No.758 and 863 of 2008. The learned counsel for the appellant did not point out at the time of hearing that there is any other appeal pending in this Court challenging the common judgment of the High Court with reference to the aforesaid two appeals.

FACTS OF THE CASE :

3. The particulars regarding the present appeals and the respective plot numbers in the individual cases are stated as under:

4. As common legal issues are involved, the facts have been extracted from Civil Appeal No.2950 of 2023. The undisputed facts of this case are that, Respondent/ Plaintiff in the present appeal made application to Appellant/Defendant No.2 (Belgaum Urban Development Authority, in short ‘BUDA’) for allotment of residential site. The appellant allotted site to the plaintiff. The allotment letter was issued on 12.11.1990. Possession of the site was handed over to the plaintiff. Thereafter, lease-cum-sale agreement was executed on 10.05.1991 in favour of plaintiff/respondent.

5. As demand of additional price for the plot was raised from the respondent, suit was filed. The Trial Court decreed the suit. In appeal, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was reversed. In second appeal filed by the appellant, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court was reversed. The same is under challenge before this Court. The High Court, in second appeal, directed the appellant to execute the sale deed in favour of respondents in RSA Nos. 864,758 and 863 of 2008 and further directed to refund the additional price paid by the respondents in RSA Nos. 759 and 760 of 2008.

ARGUMENTS :

6. Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that plots were allotted to the Respondents-Plaintiffs vide allotment letter dated 12.11.1990. The clause contained in the Allotment letter mentions that the cost of the plot is tentative. Hence, demand of additional price cannot be said to be illegal. It was on account of enhancement of compensation of the land which was utilized for carving out the plots allotted to the Respondents-Plaintiffs. He further referred to the lease-cum-sale agreements executed in favour of Respondent dated 10.05.1991 where no specific amount as such has been mentioned as consideration. It only mentions that the price was negotiated and the Respondents have been allowed to occupy the plot till such time payment of full price is made. The lease-cum-sale agreement further provided that the parties thereto agreed to abide by the terms and conditions as specified in Karnataka Improvement Boards Rules, 1976. While relying upon the judgment of this Court in Shimla Development Authority v. Asha Rani, (1996) 8 SCC 487 it was submitted that in the aforesaid case, this Court had allowed the Shimla Development Authority to charge additional amount from the allottees on account of enhancement of compensation for the land acquired.

7. The judgment of this Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board and Others v. Sea Shore Apartments Owner’s Welfare Association, (2008) 3 SCC 21 has also been relied upon to submit that if price mentioned is tentative, additional amount can be demanded.

8. In the case at hand the demand of additional price is fully justifie