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

2013 Supreme(MP) 1375

SANJAY YADAV
Sudha Jain and 16 Others – Appellant
Versus
M. P. Housing and Infrastructure Development – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Shri Hemant Shrivastava, Advocate in Writ Petition Nos. 5692/2013 and 9736/2013, Shri Deepak Raghuvanshi, Advocate in Writ Petition No. 996/2013, Shri Dipak Raghuvanshi, Advocate in Writ Petition Nos. 995 and 5746/2013, A. Mukhipadhyay, Advocate in Writ Petition No. 3170/2013, Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, Advocate in Writ Petition Nos. 10713, 10714, 10715, 10717, 10718, 10738, 10740, 11242, 11312, 11314, 11314, 11316, 11317, 11710, 11712, 11713, 11714, 11715, 11716, 11717, 11788, 11789, 11790, 11791, 11792, 12595, 13104, 13106/2013, Shri Dipak Raghuvanshi in Writ Petition Nos. 998, 5746/2013, Shri R.N. Singh, Senior Advocate, Shri Vijay Shukla, Advocate in Writ Petition No. 5690/2013, Shri A.K. Singh, Advocate in Writ Petition No. 7147/2013 and Shri Hemant Shrivastava, Advocate in Writ Petition No. 9736/2013
For the Respondents/Defendant:Shri R.D. Jain, Advocate General, Shri P.K. Kaurav, Additional Advocate General for the State
For M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board:Shri Aditya Khandekar, Advocate in Writ Petition Nos. 5690, 5692, 5746, 9736/2013, Shri Sanjeev Mishra, Advocate in Writ Petition Nos. 995, 996, 998/2013, Shri G.P. Dubey, Advocate in Writ Petition Nos. 21789/2012, 423, 432, 439, 3164, 3165, 3170/2013, Shri Rakesh Jain, Advocate in Writ Petition Nos. 11712, 11312, 11314, 11316, 11317, 11710, 11714, 11715, 11716, 11717, 11788, 11791, 11792, 12595, 13106/2013, Shri Vivekanand Awasthy, Advocate in Writ Petition Nos. 11242, 11713/2013, Shri R.K. Samaiya, Advocate in Writ Petition Nos. 10713, 10714, 10715, 10717, 10718, 10738, 10740, 11789, 11790, 13104/2013 and Shri M.S. Bhatti, Advocate in Writ Petition No. 7147/2013 for M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Yadav, J.

1. Though these writ petitions are by different income groups having purchased Nice Duplex/Nice Triplex/Nice Duplex Corner/Senior Higher Income Groups/Higher Income Group/Middle Income Group and the Economically Weaker Sections under Self Financing Scheme from the Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrastructure Board (hereafter referred to as Board); however, because of the similarity of the controversy raised in these writ petitions, they were heard analogously and decided by this common order. The issue revolves round the pricing of these residential accommodations.

2. Since the same principle of pricing are applied for these residential houses by the Board, the basic facts are retrieved from Writ Petition No. 5692/2013 - Dr. Sudha Jain and 16 others.

3. Inviting offer through advertisement, drawing of lot, allotment thereof by selecting prospective purchasers, various installments payable by these prospective purchasers on the basis of tentative/provisional price fixed by Board by these purchasers (In some EWS cases the fact may vary regarding the payment schedule; however, since pricing of residential houses is the core issue, the variation of payment schedule




























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top