B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE respondent-Andhra Pradesh housing. Board invited applications from the interested persons in the year 1979 for allotment of MIG houses in Phases I and II near Kukatpally, Hyderabad. The tentative amount of Rs. 41,800. 00 per each house was specified at that time. However, the price was revised to Rs. 65,000. 00 eventually during the progress of the construction of the houses. The houses were finally allotted and handed over to the petitioners in the year 1985. The allottees were required to deposit 30% of the amount towards tentative cost and execute the Lease-cum- sale Agreement and also undertake the schedule of payment. There is no dispute whatsoever that all the petitioners herein have paid 30% of the tentative cost and accordingly entered into an agreement with the respondent-Housing Board. We need not, in detail, notice the terms and conditions of the Lease-cum-Sale agreement.

( 2 ) IT is an admitted fact that after a period of almost nine years of the allotment, the Housing Board issued a notice in the year 1994 increasing the cost of each of the house to Rs. 94,800. 00. The petitioners were accordingly asked to deposit 30% of the demand of Rs. 94,800. 00 as if the demand was made in 1985, that is to say, the date of allotment. The petitioners and other allottees were asked to pay Rs. 30,000. 00 and another sum of Rs. 16,000. 00 towards the deposit on the ground that there were certain arbitration cases pending between the Board and the contractors. The said decision of the Board is challenged in this writ petition.

( 3 ) THE respondent-Housing Board in its counter-affidavit sought to justify its action stating that the cost of the land was finally fixed by the Supreme Court some time in february, 1994 and thereafter the final cost of each of the house was/fixed by the housing Board and the allottees were accordingly intimated at the earliest in June, 1994. It is submitted that the arbitration cases filed by the contractors are still pending and in order to mitigate and not to deprive the allottees of their legitimate right to get the houses registered in their names, the Housing Board decided to execute the registered sale deeds on payment of final cost and by takin a joint deposit in the name of allottee and the Executive Engineer (Housing) in the shape of fixed deposit for rs. 11,600/- in case of MIG-I Houses and rs. 16,000/- for MIG-II Houses.

( 4 ) IT is submitted by the Housing Board that the factors governing the fixation of final cost are many, and among them there are two variables; cost of land and contractors bills. It is the case of the housing Board that both these factors are prone to litigations in Court cases, resulting in delay in fixing the final cost. The escalation in the cost is anticipated by the provisions of the Act and rules and accordingly discretion is conferred upon the vice-Chairman and Managing Director of the Board to determine the final cost of the house after receiving final bills of construction, the interest payable on the loans taken for the construction of houses, the final cost of land and the expenditure for development etc.

( 5 ) IT is the case of the respondent-Housing board that the decision is neither arbitrary nor irrational. It is explained in the counter-affidavit that the final cost of the houses is worked out after taking the factors into consideration and the actual amounts spent and utilized by the Housing board for the purpose of providing houses to the allottees. It is explained that due to pendency of cases relating to acquisition of land, the final cost could not be fixed within two years. The acquisition cases were settled finally by the Supreme Court in february, 1994 and immediately after disposal of the cases, the final cost was fixed, which worked out to Rs. 78,600. 00 for mig-I houses and Rs. 94,800. 00 for MIG-II houses. The allottees were accordingly intimated in June, 1994 itself. It is explained that the arbitration cases fil

Click Here to Read the rest of this document