Judgment 1. In ail these three writ applications similar question of law and facts are involved and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by common order. C.W.J.C.No.9315/98. 2. The petitioner was allotted House no. 244 at Hanuman Nagar Housing Colony, Patna vide letter dated 21.8.1981, Annexure-4. The price of the house was estimated at Rs. 67,100/-. The same amount was to be paid in 12 years in 144 equal instalments. A registered deed of hire-purchase agreement was executed between the parties on 26.8.1981, Annexure-3. Possession of the said house was delivered by the respondents-Housing Board vide letter dated 25.11.1981, Annexure-5. The petitioner used to pay monthly instalment but in between 6.4.1985 to 5.2.1991 respondents refused to accept monthly instalment on the plea that the allotment made in favour of the allottees were cancelled by the order of the State Government and as such no monthly instalment for the aforesaid period was paid. Several cases were filed before this Court against the order of cancellation including C.W.J.C.No.4841/82 which was decided on 9.8.1989 and order of cancellation was held to be invalid and the allotment was restored to the allottees. From 1992 onwards the petitioner regularly deposited monthly instalment. The petitioner learnt that in the meeting held on 18.7.1991 it has been decided that no interest or fine shall be levied against the allottees of M.I.G. House in those cases in which allotment was cancelled but subsequently restored. The petitioner has paid Rs. 100495/- and Rs.25000/- on 28.2.1998 vide receipt No.1216, Annexure-14. The respondents vide letter dated 19.7.1997, Annexure-01, made a further demand of Rs.206617/- . Subsequently vide letter dated 17.9.1997, Annexure-2 it was communicated to the petitioner that provisional cost of the house was re-assessed and on re-assessment Rs.206617/- was due and accordingly directed to deposit the said amount and inform the Board so that steps may be taken for transfer of the house. According to the petitioner the demand/enhancement of the price of the house in question is arbitrary, illegal and not in terms of agreement dated 28.2.98. In similar situation C.W.J.C.No.6106/91 was filed which was disposed of on 8.7.1992 directing Housing Board to execute the lease in favour of the petitioner for a period of 90 years. According to the petitioner the demand/enhancement of the price of the house in question is arbitrary, illegal and not in terms of agreement dated 28.2.98. In similar situation C.W.J.C.No.6106/91 was filed which was disposed of on 8.7.1992 directing Housing Board to execute the lease in favour of the petitioner for a period of 90 years. However, it was made clear that if the Housing Board makes re-calculation on the price fixed and if anything is found due in terms of agreement the Housing Board may insist for payment of only that amount. Against the said order Housing Board moved the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court refused to interfere in S.LP. (Civil) No.13243/92 disposed of on 9.11.1992, Annexure-11. The Review petition no.159/92 filed by the Housing Board was also dismissed on 27.9.1993 vide order, Annexure-12. The petitioner in this background has filed the present writ application for quashing the demand, Annexure-1 & 2 and also for issue of direction for execution of deed of lease. C.W.J.C.No.2243/99. 3. The petitioner was allotted M.I.G. House no.46 vide letter dated 19.8.1981. The price of the house was shown Rs.66276/-. The petitioner deposited 25% of the total amount i.e. Rs.16586.75 on 24.8.1981 and rest of the amount was to be deposited within a period of 12 years in 144 equal instalments. Hire-purchase agreement was executed on 25.8.1981 and possession of the house was delivered to the petitioner on 13.1.1982. Monthly instalment was not received by the Board between 6.4.1985 to 5.2.1991 on the plea that allotment made in favour of the allottees was cancelled by the order of the State Government. Several cases including C.W.J.C.No.4841/82 and C.W.J.C.No.4006/83 were filed before this Court against the order of cancellation which were disposed of on 9.8.1989 and 23.8.1991 respectively and the order of cancellation was quashed and allotments in favour of the allottees were restored. The petitioner regularly paid monthly instalment from 1992 onwards. The petitioner has already paid Rs.96021/- against fixed price of Rs. 66276/-. The petitioner learnt that in the meeting held on 18.7.1991 it has been decided that no interest or fine shall be levied against the allottees of M.i.G. House in those cases in which allotment was cancelled but subsequently restored. The respondents-Board made a further demand of Rs. 2,34,495/- vide letter dated 19.12.1998, Annexure-1. 66276/-. The petitioner learnt that in the meeting held on 18.7.1991 it has been decided that no interest or fine shall be levied against the allottees of M.i.G. House in those cases in which allotment was cancelled but subsequently restored. The respondents-Board made a further demand of Rs. 2,34,495/- vide letter dated 19.12.1998, Annexure-1. Subsequently, vide letter dated 15.1.1999 the Board communicated to the petitioner that the price of the house including the land has been determined at Rs. 3,87,315/- inclusive of the interest at 11% and after deduction of deposit made by the petitioner Rs. 2,35,913/- is due against him. Accordingly, directed to deposit the aforesaid amount and inform the Board so that further steps be taken for transfer of the house. According to the petitioner the demand/enhancement of the price of the house in question is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner has already paid Rs. 2,01,934/-. In similar situation C.W.J.C. No. 5106/91 was filed which was disposed of on 8.7.1992 directing the Housing Board to execute the lease in favour of the petitioner for a period of 90 years. However, it was made clear that if the Housing Board makes recalculation on the price fixed and if anything is found due in terms of the agreement the Housing Board may insist for payment of only that amount. Against the said order Housing Board moved the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court refused to interfere in S.L.P.(Civil) No.13243/92 disposed of on 9.11.1992. The review petition no.159/92 filed by the Housing Board was also dismissed on 27.9.1993 vide Annexures 7, 8 & 9 respectively. The petitioner in this background has filed the present writ application for quashing the demand, Annexures-1 & 2 and also for issue of direction for execution of deed of lease. C.W.J.C.No.2304/99. 4. The petitioner was allotted M.I.G.House no.10 at Hanuman Nager vide allotment letter dated 19.8.1981, Annexure-2. The price of the house was fixed at Rs.67,090/-. Initially Rs.16773/- was paid pursuant to the allotment of the house. Rest amount was to be paid in 144 monthly instalments. The deed of hire-purchase agreement was executed on 21.8.1981. The Managing Director vide letter dated 22.8.1081 issued letter directing the Executive Engineer to hand over possession but the Executive Engineer refused to hand-over possession on the plea that doors, windows, electrical wiring and sanitary fittings were not complete. However, in the meantime allotment of the house was cancelled. The deed of hire-purchase agreement was executed on 21.8.1981. The Managing Director vide letter dated 22.8.1081 issued letter directing the Executive Engineer to hand over possession but the Executive Engineer refused to hand-over possession on the plea that doors, windows, electrical wiring and sanitary fittings were not complete. However, in the meantime allotment of the house was cancelled. The petitioner and others challenged the order of cancellation in C.W.J.C.No.3119/83 which was disposed of on 11.12.1991 and the order of cancellation was quashed. The possession of the house was delivered vide letter dated 5.1.1993. The petitioner started paying instalment with effect from 6.5.1990 i.e. before handing over possession. A demand notice dated 23.11.1995 was served on the petitioner for payment of balance amount Rs.59994.88. The petitioner paid the said amount on 8.12.95. The petitioner paid total amount of Rs.1,07,568/-. The Executive Engineer requested the Managing Director vide letter dated 22.12.1995, Annexure-7 for further action in respect of final transfer of the house in favour of the petitioner. The respondent-Board again made a demand vide letter dated 11.2.1997 to pay R.2,27,220/- for final transfer of the house. Subsequently, another demand notice was issued to the petitioner vide letter dated 5.3.1997 asking the petitioner to deposit Rs.2,31,351/- by 30.4.1997. Again a demand notice vide letter dated 17.2.1999 was issued asking the petitioner to deposit Rs.2,31,351/-. According to the petitioner the demand/enhancement of the price of the house in question is arbitrary and illegal. In similar situation C.W.J.C.No.5106/91 was filed which was disposed of on 8.7.1992 directing the Housing Board to execute the lease in favour of the petitioner for a period of 90 years. However, it was made clear that if the Housing Board makes recalculation on the price fixed and if anything is found due in terms of the agreement the Housing Board may insist for payment of only that amount. Against the said order Housing Board moved the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court refused to interfere in S.L.P.(Civil) No.13243/92 disposed of on 9.11.1992. The review petition no.159/92 filed by the Housing Board was also dismissed on 27.9.1993 vide Annexures 10, 11 & 12 respectively. The petitioner in this back ground has filed the present writ application for quashing the demand, Annexure-1 and also for issue of direction for execution of the deed of lease. 5. The review petition no.159/92 filed by the Housing Board was also dismissed on 27.9.1993 vide Annexures 10, 11 & 12 respectively. The petitioner in this back ground has filed the present writ application for quashing the demand, Annexure-1 and also for issue of direction for execution of the deed of lease. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 6 in C.W.J.C.No.9315/98 which is to be treated counter-affidavit in all the cases as the learned counsel for the Board stated. In the counter-affidavit stand has been taken that agreement of hire-purchase was executed and as per the allotment order and the agreement the cost of the house of middle income group has been fixed at Rs.3,86,315/- as on 31.3.1996 and after adjustment of the deposit made by the allottees letter has been issued for deposit of the due amount. The allottees have not deposited all the instalments in time and hence penal interest has been charged and also legal and documentation charges have been levied. Interest has been charged not to earn any profit but to meet the financial obligation. Pursuant to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C.No.47/94 and 2724/94 the Board has constituted a committee consisting of four members for redressal of the grievance of the allottees with regard to cost of flats and payment of instalments. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that enhancement of the price/demand as made by the respondent-Housing Board is illegal, arbitrary and against the terms of agreement executed between the parties. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents contended that tentative price was fixed and as per agreement respondents are entitled to realise the enhanced cost of construction, cost of acquisition and development and as such the letter issued to the petitioners for deposit of the due amount is as per agreement. 7. On consideration of submission made by learned counsel for the parties and material on record it is manifest that petitioners were allotted middle income group houses. The price of the house was fixed at Rs.67100/-, Rs.66276/- and Rs.67090/- respectively. During the period 1985 to 1991 the petitioners did not deposit monthly instalment as the respondent-Board refused to receive on the plea that allotments of the houses have been cancelled by the State Government. The cancellation order was challenged in the High Court and the same was quashed. During the period 1985 to 1991 the petitioners did not deposit monthly instalment as the respondent-Board refused to receive on the plea that allotments of the houses have been cancelled by the State Government. The cancellation order was challenged in the High Court and the same was quashed. Thereafter, the petitioners paid monthly instalments. The claim of the petitioner is that they paid more than the price fixed by the respondent-Board and for the period 1985 to 1991, the petitioners cannot be held defaulter and are not liable to pay penal interest etc. The claim of the petitioners in such a situation is that action of respondents in issuing demand notice is illegal and arbitrary. However, the respondents in the counter-affidavit has taken stand that provisional price was fixed and as such final calculation was made and on re-assessment of the price it was fixed at Rs.3,88,315/- as on 31.3.1996. The petitioners defaulted in payment of instalment and as such they are liable to pay penal interest and other expenditure incurred by the Board. It is admitted position that agreement was executed between the parties and thus terms of agreement are binding on the parties. Clause-4 of the agreement reads as follows :- "That the total premium/cost indicated above is according to present estimate and hence tentative. Increase in the cost of construction or development or due to increase in cost of land acquisition or due to any decision/award of court of law or legislation or due to final valuation or otherwise shall be payable by the settlee either in instalments or in lumpsum within the period decided by the Board. The settlee shall under no circumstances be entitled to demand any accounts relating to the cost or to question or dispute it and this shall be fixed by the Board in its sole discretion". 8 It is evident from the aforesaid clause that price fixed at the time of allotment was tentative. However, allottees shall be liable to pay increase in cost of construction or development due to increase of cost of land acquisition. It is case of the parties that houses were allotted to the petitioners. Therefore, the Board may be entitled to determine the cost of construction on the date of allotment/execution of the agreement. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the price of M.I.G.has been determined as on 31.3.1996. It is case of the parties that houses were allotted to the petitioners. Therefore, the Board may be entitled to determine the cost of construction on the date of allotment/execution of the agreement. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the price of M.I.G.has been determined as on 31.3.1996. Therefore, it cannot be said that determination of price is as per agreement. More-over, in the counter-affidavit nothing has been stated as to the increase of the cost of the land as per award of the court or in any other manner. Similarly nothing has been stated as to what development was made after allotment of the houses to the petitioners. Therefore, in such a situation re-determination of the price as on 31.3.1996 and issue of demand notice to the allottees cannot be said to be legal. 9. In the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority and another vs. Rajan Dhamina and another, A.I.R.1997 Supreme Court 1732 the Apex Court has held that enhancement of cost of land can be made only when there is enhancement in the amount of award by the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act and not otherwise. 10. It is manifest from the material on record that houses were allotted to the petitioners and pursuant to the allotment order agreement was executed. The petitioners have also deposited money more than initial price fixed by the Board. Therefore, if any redetermination has to be made the Board has to redetermine the cost of houses etc. as per clause 4 of the agreement and not otherwise. 11. Thus on consideration, as discussed above, the order of enhancement/demand notices issued to the petitioners cannot be held to be legal. Accordingy, enhancement/demand notices issued to the petitioners are hereby quashed and all the three writ applications are hereby allowed. The Housing Board and its authorities, if so, advised may determine the price of the houses allotted to the petitioners in terms of clause 4 of the agreement by a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of seven months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order and shall execute registered deed in favour of the petitioners. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as lo cost.