Judgment :- Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the Puliyur Housing Board Allottees Welfare Association, challenging the order of the Housing Board relating to escalation of prices. It appears that in respect of the very same scheme, another writ petition had been filed by the very same association in W.P.No.4677 of 1997. In the aforesaid matter, a learned single Judge of this Court had allowed the writ petition by observing as follows:- 'In the case on hand, the respondents, in not having come forward with a plausible explanation as to why there was escalation in the cost and as to whether it can be attributable to the allottees, cannot be permitted to mulct the members of the petitioner-Association with pecuniary liability under the guise of escalation, which will not be countenanced in the eye of law. Further, the respondents have not reserved any right to demand a higher cost which will be normally incorporated either in the terms of allotment or in the lease-cum-sale agreement. Apart from this, all the communications would disclose that it is a self-finance scheme under outright purchase basis and in clear terms, it has been mentioned as "entered cost of the flat" wherever the price was indicated'. In fact, the question raised in the present writ petition is clearly covered by the aforesaid decision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, submitted that in the meantime, steps have been taken to challenge the aforesaid decision of the learned single Judge and notice has been issued in the matter relating to condonation of delay. Merely because an appeal has been filed and notice has been issued in the matter relating to condonation of delay, it cannot be said that the effect of the judgment is taken away. In the present case, the previous decision is between the same parties relating to very same scheme and, therefore, the present writ petition is clearly covered by the decision of the said case. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the escalation had been done because of the payment of higher compensation in Land Acquisition Original Petition. This submission has been denied by the counsel appearing for the petitioner who has produced several copies of decisions, where the cases filed by the land owners claiming higher compensation for the acquisition have been dismissed. This submission has been denied by the counsel appearing for the petitioner who has produced several copies of decisions, where the cases filed by the land owners claiming higher compensation for the acquisition have been dismissed. On the other hand, not a single judgment has been produced by the counsel for the respondent to show that, in fact, there has been enhancement of compensation in any of the land acquisition cases. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent also has cited several other decisions where the writ petitions relating to escalation had been dismissed. In the present case, in respect of the very same complex, the writ petition has already been allowed and if the present writ petition is decided in a different way, it will result in two inconsistent orders in respect of the very same housing complex. Since in the present case, nothing has been shown to justify the increase and as observed in the previous decision of K.Narayana Kurup, J., that the price indicated was "tentative", other decisions cited by the counsel appearing for the respondent are not applicable. 6. It is made clear that in case there is any subsequent payment of higher compensation for land acquisition by virtue of any decision, it will be open to the Housing Board to realise the additional amount from all concerned. The writ petition is allowed subject to the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP No.16057 of 2002 is closed.