Back
2021 Supreme(Guj) 854
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R.M.Chhaya, Biren Vaishnav, JJ.
M.P.Mamtora – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & others – Respondents
R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 508 of 2014 In R/Special Civil Application No. 13209 of 2004 With R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 443, 444, 509 of 2014 In Special Civil Application No. 13656, 13209, 13656 of 2004
Decided On : 21-09-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr C K Divakaran
For the Respondent: Mr. Dhaval Jaiswal Asst. Government Pleader, Mr. Tirthraj Pandya Asst. Government Pleader, Mr Y N Ravani
Point of Law: It is very essential to reduce the cost of these vacant houses for sale so that the blockage amount as aforesaid may be released from which the Board can pay up the loan in HUDCO and can construct new houses from the available fund. For this if the amount which is collected by Board as Development Reserve Fund is decreased or set off or if the cost of the houses is reduced to some extent, then the sale of the houses may get speedy
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 & 226 – Equality before law - Powers to appellant Gujarat Housing Board - Whether original petitioners would be entitled to benefit of rebate to tune of 25% as per Resolution is concerned, it would be appropriate to refer to date on which allotment letters were issued to original petitioners
Findings of the Court: petitioners have fulfilled criteria, and terms and conditions with regard to full payment, before cut off, would definitely be entitled to scheme of enhanced rebate at 25% as per their own Resolution - Therefore, Respondent Board is estopped from backing out from such promise and denying benefit to petitioners - Accordingly, present petitions deserve to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed - Prayer in terms in both petitions is granted - Respondent Board is directed to extend benefit of rebate @ 25% and shall make payment within a period of six weeks - Rule is made absolute - Judge has committed no error in coming to conclusion that as cut off, both original petitioners would be entitled to benefit of Resolution and was pleased to allow respective writ petitions - Contention raised by appellant Housing Board deserves to be negative - We find that there is no error much less any error which requires interference of Court in its appellate jurisdiction
Result: Appeals dismissed
JUDGMENT :
R.M. CHHAYA, J.
1. Since all these appeals involve common issues, all the appeals have been clubbed and heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. The facts as narrated in Letters Patent Appeal No. 444 of 2014 are made the basis of this common judgment and order.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and order dated 26.07.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application Nos. 13209 of 2004 and 13656 of 2004, the Gujarat Housing Board and others have preferred Appeals being Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 443 & 444 of 2014. After the common judgment and order was delivered, the original petitioners preferred Review Application and claimed interest. The said Review Application filed by the original petitioners came to be rejected vide order dated 11.09.2013, which is impugned before us by the original petitioners being Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 508 and 509 of 2014. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions filed by the original petitioners was pleased to allow the petitions and came to the conclusion that the original petitioners fulfilled the criteria and terms and conditions with regard to the full payment before the cut off date of 1.4.2003 and was further pleased to hold that original petitioners are entitled to 25% rebate as per the Resolution No.307 of 2003 dated 18.08.2003 and directed the Gujarat Housing Board to extend the benefit of rebate of 25% and to make actual payment of such benefit within a period of six weeks. Similarly, in two Letters Patent Appeals filed by the original petitioners i.e. Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 508 and 509 of 2014, the original petitioner’s claim 12% interest from due date till the actual payment, which was declined by the learned Single Judge.
4. Following facts emerge from the record of these appeals.
4.1. The appellant Gujarat Housing Board is constituted under the Gujarat Housing Board Act, 1961. The Gujarat Housing Board is under the authority to construct the residential dwelling of different type for different category of citizens of Gujarat. The Act of 1961 provides for such powers to the appellant Gujarat Housing Board.
4.2. The record indicates that the appellants Board floated a scheme of 120 flats of A Type and 40 flats of B Type in Naranpura Area of Ahmedabad City and the scheme was named Anmol. The record indicates that the scheme as such was for HIG-High Income Group and was multi storied building of 10th Floor. Constructed area in form of flat as far as A type is concerned, was admeasuring 137.08 sq mtrs whereas constructed area of flat B type was 113.78 sq mtrs. The record indicates that the appellants Gujarat Housing Board fixed total cost price of A Type at Rs.8,43,000/- and B Type at Rs. 7,34,000/-. The record further indicates that as per the Rules applicable wide publication of such scheme floated by the appellants was given and information booklet was also published. The record further indicates that the Housing Board could not find buyers for all the flats in the scheme and flats particularly in the scheme as mentioned herein above remained unsold. As per the policy applicable, Housing Board gave a public advertisement in Gujarati daily “Sandesh” dated 23.3.2003 and invited applications by mentioning that it is ready flats and immediate possession. In the said advertisement, both the flats which are subject matter of these appeals were forming part at scheme no.1 being A Type Flat in 880 HIG, Anmol Tower and at no.2 B Type Flat. The petitioners in response to the said advertisement applied for allotment of B Type Flats. After scrutiny of the application so filed by the original petitioners, the appellants Gujarat Housing Board allotted Flat No.B 801 to the original petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 13209 of 2004 and Flat No.A-2/104 to original petitioner of Spec
