SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Bom) 976

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
A.S. Chandurkar, Pushpa V. Ganediwala, JJ.
Nitin & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 4383 of 2019, Contempt Petition No. 65 of 2019 and Writ Petition No. 7579 of 2017
Decided On : 31-03-2021

Advocates appeared:
Shri R. L. Khapre, Senior Advocate With Shri D. R. Khapre, Advocate, for the Appellant / Ms Tajwar Khan, Assistant Government Pleader, Shri A. S. Jaiswal, Senior Advocate With Shri H. N. Verma, Advocate, for the Respondent.

Headnote:

Revision of Price - Housing Project - Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, Clause-22 of the 1981 Regulations - The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the increase in the price of a tenement, holding that the Resolution dated 15/12/2015 passed by the Authority was not without jurisdiction and not violative of Clause-22 of the 1981 Regulations. The court found that the petitioner willingly accepted the revision in the price of the tenement and that the increase was applied uniformly for all tenements in the high income group. The court also dismissed the contempt petition, finding no wilful disobedience of the undertaking given by the Executive Engineer.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner applied for a residential row-house in the high-income group, and the price was revised from Rs.14,90,000 to Rs.21,85,000. The petitioner challenged the further escalation in the price and sought damages for delay in handing over possession. The respondent argued that the rights of the petitioner were purely contractual and should be addressed in a civil court.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ petition, finding that the Resolution dated 15/12/2015 was not without jurisdiction and not violative of Clause-22 of the 1981 Regulations. The court also dismissed the contempt petition, finding no wilful disobedience of the undertaking given by the Executive Engineer.

Issues: The main issue was the challenge to the increase in the price of the tenement and the delay in handing over possession.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Resolution dated 15/12/2015 was a policy decision taken by the Authority and was not in violation of Clause-22 of the 1981 Regulations. The court also found that the petitioner willingly accepted the revision in the price of the tenement and that the increase was applied uniformly for all tenements in the high income group.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the contempt petition was also dismissed. The petitioner was permitted to deposit the balance consideration for the tenement without prejudice to their rights to challenge the judgment before the Apex Court or avail any other remedy available in law.

JUDGMENT

A.S. Chandurkar, J. - Since both these proceedings have been directed to be decided together, the same are taken up for final disposal.

The facts in brief giving rise to Writ Petition No.4383/2019 are that pursuant to an advertisement dated 05/04/2011 issued by the respondent No.3-Amravati Housing and Area Development Board (for short, the Amravati Board) through its Executive Engineer inviting applications from persons interested in purchasing tenements of various dimensions, the petitioner applied for a residential row-house in the high-income group. The price of that house was indicated to be Rs.14,90,000/-. On the petitioner's application dated 28/04/2011 being favourably considered the petitioner made initial payment to the respondent No.2. On 01/10/2012 the petitioner was informed by the respondent No.5-Estate Manager of the Amravati Board that there was an escalation in the price of the house purchased by the petitioner. The enhanced price was quoted to be Rs.21,85,000/-. Pursuant thereto the petitioner on 13/10/2012 forwarded his affidavit/consent form indicating his willingness to pay the escalated price. It was also stated that the revised price that would be quoted by the Amravati Board while taking possession would also be paid by him. By April 2014 the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs. 17,77,800/- towards the said house. It appears that the petitioner was not satisfied with the quality of construction undertaken by the Amravati Board respondent and hence on 06/01/2014, 04/12/2014 and 27/08/2015 the petitioner made various complaints in that regard. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court seeking redressal of the aforesaid grievances by filing Writ Petition No.4936/2016. This Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the said writ petition with a liberty to make a representation to the Amravati Board for expeditious completion of the housing project. The petitioner thereafter made the representation as directed on 06/09/2016. On 09/03/2017 the Chief Officer of the Amravati Board adjudicated the representation of the petitioner and directed the Executive Engineer of the Amravati Board to deliver possession of the said house booked by the petitioner by 31/03/2017. The petitioner was directed to complete all formalities and the Executive Engineer was also directed to prepare structural audit of the building.

2. Thereafter on 31/10/2017 the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.7579/2017 before this Court praying that the Amravati Board be directed to implement the order dated 09/03/2017 by delivering possession and conducting the structural audit. During pendency of the writ petition, on 23/03/2018 a letter was issued by the Executive Engineer of the Amravati Board stating therein that the work of construction would be completed within four months. After completion of the work the Board was to make an application to the Municipal Corporation, Akola for being issued the Occupancy Certificate. After receiving the Occupancy Certificate steps for issuing the allotment letter and delivering possession were to be taken. It was also stated that the structural audit would also be done. On 02/04/2018 the aforesaid letter dated 23/03/2018 issued by the Amravati Board was placed before the Court in the aforesaid writ petition. The statements made in the said letter were accepted by way of an undertaking and Writ Petition No.7579/2017 came to be disposed of.

3. Thereafter on 05/11/2018 the Estate Manager of the Amravati Board issued an offer letter to the Petitioner in which the total cost of the house allotted to the petitioner was shown as Rs.24,21,082/-. The petitioner was therefore called upon to pay the balance amount of Rs.6,48,704/-. Being aggrieved by issuance of this offer letter dated 05/11/2018 the petitioner has challenged the same in Writ Petition No.4383/2019 contending that having revised the initial price toRs.21,85,000/- further escalation was not permissible. The petitioner also seeks damages from t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top