O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondent to execute the sale deed in respect of L.I.G Plot No.81 in Kavanur Housing Scheme at Arakkonam in favour of the petitioner without determining any further amount in respect of the allotment made in Rc.No.8127/88F1 dated

10/10/1994.

2. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1994, the respondent formed house sites under Kavanur Housing Development Scheme and in the lot conducted on 21/9/1994, the petitioner was allotted plot No.81. The further case of the petitioner is that he has been directed to pay the cost of the plot of Rs.10,000/- in sixteen installments. The petitioner paid the entire cost. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent periodically to get the sale deed in his favour. However, in the year 2007, the respondent demanded additional amount of Rs.4,360/- to execute the sale deed, which was also paid with protest, but the sale deed was not executed. Since the respondent has not come forward to execute the sale deed, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

3. Heard Mr.V.Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner and there is no representation on behalf of the sole respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board vs. M/s.Prakash Dal Mills, reported in 2011 STPL (Web) 352 SC, submitted that the respondent-Municipality has to act in a fair and reasonable manner and when they did not incur any additional cost, no additional land cost can be demanded from the petitioner. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:

"15. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. It is true that under Clause 7(b), the Board reserved to itself the right to fix the final price of the demised premises as soon as it may be convenient to it and communicate the same to the concerned lessee. Upon communication of the price, the lessee is required to pay the balance of the value of the site. Determination of the price by the Board is binding on the lessee. In our opinion, the aforesaid clause would not permit the Board to arbitrarily or irrationally fix the final price of the site without any rational basis. The power of price fixation under Clause 7 being statutory in nature would have to be exercised, in accordance with statutory provisions; it can not be permitted to be exercised arbitrarily. Undoubtedly, as observed by this Court in the case of Premji Bhai Parmar (supra), Courts would not reopen the concluded contracts. Ms. Suri had placed reliance on the observations made by this Court in Paragraph 10 of the judgment, which are as follows:- "Pricing policy is an executive policy. If the Authority was set up for making available dwelling units at reasonable price to persons belonging to different income groups it would not be precluded from devising its own price formula for different income groups. If in so doing it uniformly collects something more than cost price from those with cushion to benefit those who are less fortunate it cannot be accused of discrimination. In this country where weaker and poorer sections are unable to enjoy the basic necessities, namely, food, shelter and clothing, a body like the Authority undertaking a comprehensive policy of providing shelter to those who cannot afford to have the same in the competitive albeit harsh market of demand and supply nor can afford it on their own meagre emoluments or income, a little more from those who can afford for the benefit of those who need succour, can by no stretch of imagination attract Article 14. People in the MIG can be charged more than the actual cost price so as to give benefit to allottees of flats in LIG, Janata and CPS. And yet record shows that those better off got flats comparatively cheaper to such flats in open market. It is a well recognised policy underlying tax law that the State has a wide discretion in s