Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 577 (PNJ)

Ajay Kumar Singhal v. Chandigarh Housing Board

2002-05-22

V.K.BALI

body2002
Judgment 1. By this common order, I propose to deckle five connected Civil Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 3265, 1 1452 and 12922 of 1993. 3752 of 1994 and 1705 of 2002, as common questions of fact and law are involved in all these petitions. Learned counsel representing the parlies also suggest likewise. The bare minimum facts that need necessary mention, however, have been extracted from Civil Writ Petition No. 3265 of 1993. 2. The Chandigarh Housing Board floated a scheme for allotment of 1750 dwelling flats in Seclors 45-A, 45-B and 39-B, Chandigarh, in 1986. Last date for receipt of applications for allotment of these dwelling units was fixed as 4-12-1986. However, inasmuch as, response to the advertisement, referred to above, was poor, a fresh advertisement/notice came to be issued in 1987. pursuant to which, petitioners applied for Category-II flats in the same year and deposited an amount of Rs.8,000/- as initial deposit, so required under the terms and conditions of the allotment of a dwelling unit. Fora dwelling unit, which would have a constructed area of 1000 sq. ft., the Chandigarh Housing Board fixed the price at Rs. 1.67 lac. On the draw of lots, that was held on 20-2-1988 for allotment of flats, petitioners were successful and accordingly, they started depositing instalments as fixed by the Chandigarh Housing Board Vide advertisement, Annexure P-3. dated 12-4-1989. the Chandigarh Housing Board informed that 264 flats of Category-II are being eonslructed as per revised design, area whereof would be 1220 sq. ft. and the price of such a revised dwelling unit would be Rs.2.92 lac for ground floor and Rs.2.65 lac lor Ist and IInd floors. Inasmuch as. in the draw of lots held on 20-2 -1988, petitioners had been only allocaled floors and no flat numbers, as such. were allotted fo them, a draw of lots for 162 flats of Category-II was held on 26-5-1990. The petitioners, however, did not figure in the said draw of lots. Therefore, yet another draw of lots was held on 15-9-1991, wherein petitioners were successful and were allotted flat numbers as well, possession whereof was given to them in December 1991. The price of these flats for ground floor was. however, fixed at Rs.3.80 lac and for Ist and IInd floors at Rs.3.42 lac. which was later on revised and reduced vide order. Annexure P-7. dated 27-11-1992. The price of these flats for ground floor was. however, fixed at Rs.3.80 lac and for Ist and IInd floors at Rs.3.42 lac. which was later on revised and reduced vide order. Annexure P-7. dated 27-11-1992. whereby ground floor was to cost Rs.3,65,100/-, whereas price of Ist and IInd floors was to remain the same. 3. The only contention, that has been raised on the facts, stated above, is that petitioners have been discriminated inasmuch as for the allotment of dwelling units floated in the same scheme whereas the petitioners have been asked to pay an amount of Rs.3.80 lac for Ist Floor and Rs.3.42 lac for IInd and IIIrd Floors, those. who were successful in the first draw of lots. were charged Rs.2.92 lac for ground floor and Rs.2.65 lac for Ist and IInd floors. This is the only point raised during the course of arguments. 4. In the context of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court, however, finds no substance whatsoever in the only contention of the learned counsel, noted above. 5. In the additional affidavit that has been fifed on behalf of the respondents, it has inter alia been averred that the construction of flats was completed in two phases, depending upon the availability of the land. building materials, labour, administrative machinery etc. Accordingly, the draw of lots for allotment of specific dwelling units were held on two occasions on the completion of the dwelling units. The petitioners herein. were unsuccessful in the first draw of lots held on 26-5-1990 and were successful in the second draw of lots held on 2-10-1991. Since the flats were completed in different phases, it is but natural that the priee of the flats in different phases differed inter se. It is obvious that the price of the subsequently completed flats is bound to be higher. It has further been averred that the construction of 84 flats of category II bearing Nos. 157 to 180/2 and 270 to 273/2 In Sector 45-A, as were allotted to the petitioners, was taken up in August. 1990 since the same could not be taken up earlier because of non-availability of the clear site which took almost one and half years to make available the site clear of encroachments in the form of jhuggies and a ration depot. 1990 since the same could not be taken up earlier because of non-availability of the clear site which took almost one and half years to make available the site clear of encroachments in the form of jhuggies and a ration depot. Therefore, the increase in the cost of construction was bound to be there as the cost of building materials, labour charges etc. go on increasing with the passage of time on which the respondent-Board has no control. Again, the land on which these flats were constructed was in low lying area and, therefore, the Board had to fill in deeper foundations to the extent of 8 to 10 as compared to 4 to 5 in the case of flats constructed earlier which resulted in the additional cost of construction. 6. The Court is not impressed with the later part of the additional affidavit pertaining to the area under dwelling units allotted to the petitioners being deeper to the extent of 8 to 10 as compared to 4 to 5 for charging extra price from the petitioners as this factor was known/available to the respondents. The averments with regard to the dwelling units being constructed in two phases and being allotted to the petitioners in the second draw of lots and that in the meanwhile there was increase in the cost of construction, cannot, however, be faulted on any ground whatsoever. All that this Court can observe is that the petitioners were not as lucky, as allottees, who were successful in the first draw of lots. This is just a matter of chance that the petitioners were successful in the draw of lots that was held subsequently to the one, who were allotted dwelling units in the first draw of lots. It is significant to mention here that one of the stipulations contained in the allotment letter is that the price fixed therein is tentative. It is further significant to mention here that even though the price was increased initially from the original to Rs.3.80 lacs for the ground floor flat and Rs.3.42 lacs for the first floor and second floor flats in view of the cost of the construction of the flats, the same was later on revised and reduced vide order dated 20-11-1992 (Annexure P-7). So far as the ground floor is concerned, it was reduced from Rs.3.80 lacs to Rs.3,65,100/-. So far as the ground floor is concerned, it was reduced from Rs.3.80 lacs to Rs.3,65,100/-. The revision of price would clearly demonstrate that respondent-authorities were working out the price depending upon various circumstances, one such circumstance for increase in price is cost of construction due to escalation of price of flats. That being so, no occasion at all arises to annul such an increase. These petitions have no merit and, thus, deserve to be dismissed. 7. At this stage, it has been brought to my notice that in some of the petitions that came up for motion hearing before this Court, a conditional stay was granted that in case the petitioners were to give an undertaking that in case of failure of writ petition, they shall deposit the amount with 12 per cent interest in lump sum, they need not deposit the amount more than the amount which is originally fixed in the allotment letters. In some of the cases, the undertaking was given whereas in some of the cases same was not given. The net effect of the interim order would be that where no undertaking was given, the respondents were at liberty to recover the remaining amount in accordance with law. However. Mr. Prabhakar informs the Court that no action was taken against any of the petitioners, even if no undertaking was given. The matter ends at that. The learned counsel for the parties are, however, adidem that the remaining amount that may be due to be paid by the petitioners, shall now be paid with interest that the respondent Housing Board is paying to HUDCO. In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties pertaining to interest, it is ordered that petitioners shall now pay the remaining amount i.e. enhanced amount with interest calculated at the rate which the Housing Board is paying to HUDCO. The writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly.