The doctrine of estoppel by representation and the finality of the sale price per unit as declared in the information brochure were central to the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

1. A bunch of demand notices, all dated April 3, 2017, and issued by the respondent no.2, individually to the members of Petitioner No. 1/Society are assailed in this writ petition. The writ petitioners have prayed for setting aside of the same.

2. Facts leading to filing of the writ petition, may be mentioned, as herein below:-

3. Members of the petitioner No.1/Society responded to an advertisement of 2004, of the respondent No. 2, for grant of long term lease of 99 years, of shops, office spaces and residential apartments at “Sourav Abasan” Phase II, at AG Block, Sector II, Bidhanager, Kolkata – 700091, to the successful allotees, by way of lottery. They purchased the offer document, i.e. the brochure and application forms. On the understanding of the declaration made in the brochure, to be true and final, as regards the area, pricing or completion of the project within the stipulated time, they applied to participate in the lottery and had succeeded ultimately. The entire price money was paid to avail benefit of discount, as disclosed in the brochure. On March 1, 2010, those applicants were handed over the possession of the allotted shops/commercial places, along with civil, electrical and mechanical works, common area and common facilities.

4. The writ petitioners say that after the actual possession was taken up, pursuant to the letter of respondent No. 2, dated April 6, 2010, a major deviation, in terms of the measurement of the allotted portion, could be noticed. It is stated that in spite of depositing price for the shop floor space of 97 sq.ft. (as mentioned in the brochure), they have been allotted floor space of 77 sq.ft. only.

5. Two years passed without any pitfall, but not thereafter. A letter dated September 13, 2012, of the respondent No.2, was received by all the allottees. Vide the same, the respondent No. 2 demanded a sum of Rs. 2000/-per sq.ft. towards cost of common space/area, to all the individual shop owners. A written representation against the same was submitted immediately thereafter, on October 11, 2012.

6. Later, on December 5, 2014, the respondent No.2 had issued a further letter, addressed to the writ petitioner No.2, that is, the Secretary of Petitioner No.1/Society, for realisation of service tax @ 12.36% and lease rent @ Rs. 5/-per sq.ft. from each shop owner. In response and protest, the writ petitioners submitted another letter dated December 11, 2014.

7. Finally, the impugned demand notices were issued, dated April 3, 2017, to each of the shop owners, individually, which reads as follow:-

The sum total of demand made to the respective allottee, though varied, but the contentions made in the said demand notices, remained same, for all the recipients. These are – dema