Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AMITABH BANERJEE, K. P. SINGH
AJAI PAL SINGH - Appellant
Versus
BAREILLY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 2274 Of 1984
Decided On : 02/06/1986
BAREILLY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - HOUSING SCHEME - ALLOTMENT OF FLATS - CHANGE IN TERMS AND CONDITIONS - ESTOPPEL - ARBITRARINESS - REDETERMINATION OF COST AND INSTALMENTS:
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners claimed flats constructed by Bareilly Development Authority in Tribhuwan Housing Scheme under various categories, including Middle Income Group (MIG). The initial registration booklet projected the cost of a MIG flat at Rs. 64,000/- with an initial payment of Rs. 5000/- and monthly installments of Rs. 551/- for 15 years. In 1984, petitioners received notice that the price had been increased to Rs. 1,27,000/-, interest increased to 13%, and monthly installments increased to Rs. 1031.50. Petitioners challenged this change, arguing estoppel, arbitrariness, and excessive cost.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners could not successfully attack the change in terms and conditions based on promissory estoppel, as the registration booklet and allotment terms allowed the Bareilly Development Authority to modify the conditions. However, the court found that the increased monthly installment of Rs. 1031.50 for petitioners with a maximum income of Rs. 1500/- per month was arbitrary and unreasonable. The court also found that the demand for double the estimated cost of the flats was arbitrary and unreasonable, and the authority failed to establish a valid basis for the increased cost.
Issues: 1. Whether the Bareilly Development Authority was estopped from changing the terms and conditions for allotment of flats. 2. Whether the increase in monthly installments and cost of flats was arbitrary and unreasonable.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioners could not rely on promissory estoppel to challenge the change in terms and conditions, as the registration booklet and allotment terms explicitly allowed the Bareilly Development Authority to modify the conditions. 2. The court found that the increased monthly installment of Rs. 1031.50 for petitioners with a maximum income of Rs. 1500/- per month was arbitrary and unreasonable, as it exceeded their ability to pay. The court also found that the demand for double the estimated cost of the flats was arbitrary and unreasonable, and the authority failed to establish a valid basis for the increased cost.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and directed the Bareilly Development Authority to redetermine the cost of the petitioners' flats and the monthly installments payable by them after hearing their grievances. The court also directed that the installments be fixed at a reasonable level that the petitioners could afford.
( 1 ) IN these writ petitions the petitioners claim different categories of flats constructed by the Bareilly Development Authority in Tribhuwan Housing Scheme. The flats in controversy are of four types, namely, Middle Income Group or MIG. Higher Income Group or HIG, Lower Income Group or LIG and Economically Weaker Sections group or EWS. The petitioners are claiming flats on the terms and conditions contemplated in the registration Booklet issued in the year 1980 when the Scheme was launched. A copy of the Booklet is on the record. The following table will show the necessary details with regard to the various types of flats projected in the Booklet :-
Type of House
Range of Income
Cost
Initial Payment
Interest Approximately monthly Installments
M. I. G.
Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 1500/- Per month
Rs. 64,000/- Rs. 5000/-
12%
Rs. 551/- p. m. for 15 years.
H. I. G.
Rs. 1500/- and above Per month.
Rs. 1,15000/- Rs. 7000/-
12%
Rs. 1440/- p. m. For 10 years.
L. I. G.
Rs. 351/- to Rs. 1000/- Per month
Rs. 35,000/- Rs. 2000/-
11%
Rs. 345/- p. m. for 15 years.
E. W. S.
Rs. 350/- Per month
Rs. 11,000/- Rs. 100/-
7%
Rs. 89/- p. m. for 20 years.
( 2 ) THE Samanya Suchna Talika contains the following two relevant conditions :- (1) ISTAMBH 4 MEN DARSHAYA GAY A MULY A KEWAL ANUMANIT HAI SAMPATTI KE TAIYAR HONE TAK MULYA MEN UTAR CHADHAV KE ANUSAR YAH GHAT BARH BHI SAKTA HAI. YOJNA VISHESH KI BHUMI KE MULYON KE ANUSAR BHI ISME VRIDHI YA KAMI KI JA SAKTI HAI. (2) UPARYUKT TALIKA MEN VARNIT AANKADON MEN AVASHYAKTA NUSAR SANSHODHAN KIYA JA SAKE GA. Since the above noted writ petitions raise common question of law and fact, they are being dealt with together in this judgment. For the sake of convenience reference to M. I. group flats is being made in this judgment.
( 3 ) IN Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2274 of 1984, Ajai Pal Singh and others versus Bareilly Development Authority and another, the petitioners 1 to 19 claim M. I. G. Flats. They received information on 19-1-1984 that the price of the flats had been enhanced from Rs. 64,000/- to Rs. 1,27,000/- and the interest payable thereon would be increased from 12% to 13% and the amount of each instalment payable at the rate of Rs. 695/- per month would be increased to Rs. 1031. 50 per month and further that in the event of allotment the applicants would also be required to deposit a sum of Rs. 35,000/- in lump sum. They were also required to give consent by 28th of Jan. 1984 otherwise their claims would not be included in the lots to be drawn on 31-1-1984.
( 4 ) THE petitioners have approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and challenged the move of the opposite party Bareilly Development Authority, Rampur bhagh Bareilly and its secretary on the ground that the Bareilly Development Authority was estopped from changing the conditions subject to which the petitioners had applied for registration and had deposited initial amount in the year 1980. According to the petitioners the information received in Jan. , 1984 indicates that the conditions have been changed to the prejudice of the petitioners.
( 5 ) SECOND ground of attack by the petitioners is that the instalment of payment after allotment indicated to the petitioners is much beyond the means of the petitioners belonging to the M. 1. group. Therefore, the action of the opposite party Bareilly Development Authority smacks of arbitrariness.
( 6 ) THIRDLY, it has been contended that the total cost of each flat has been arbitrarily fixed. The estimated cost of flat in the Booklet was Rs. 64,000/- while inviting applications from the petitioners and now the demand for that flat is to the tune of Rs. 1,27,000/- which is almost double of the estimated cost. Therefore, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :- (i) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to maintain the allotment of the houses in favour of the petitioners on the original terms and condit
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
