Judgment H.S.Bedi, J. 1. The order shall dispose of Letters Patent Appeals No.732 of 1995, 210, 218, 412 and 621 of 1996. They arise out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in C.W.P. No.6335 of 1993, whereby the writ petitions have been allowed granting a limited relief to them. 2. In view of the fact that we intend to remit the case to the respondent-Board for re-decision only on the question of escalation in the price of the flats in question, the detailed facts of the writ petitions need not be reproduced. 3. It appears that in 1989 the appellants writ petitioners in response to an advertisement applied for the allotment of category-IV flats in the residential complex at Mani-majra, at a price of Rs.2.43 lacs. A tentative schedule for making the payment was also laid down in the advertisement. After some delay, an offer was made to the allottees to take possession of the flats and a price alongwith the schedule of payment by instalments was also given therein. In the said offer, the overall price which had earlier been determined at Rs. 2.43 lacs, was now increased to Rs. 4.20 lacs with the amount of each instalment also being substantially increased. In the written statement, the above facts have not been denied but it has been urged that the price initially fixed was only tentative and on the date of filing of the written statement, the instalment payable by the allottees was Rs. 2983/- per month. The allottees accordingly filed writ petitions in this Court, which as referred to above, have been allowed, leading to these appeals at the instance of both the parties. 4. During the course of hearing today, Mr. P.S.Patwalia, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has referred to the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajai Pal Singh, followed in Indore Development Authority v. Smt. Sadhana Aggarwal and Ors., and has argued that it was perhaps not possible for him to urge before this Court that the increase in price was based on wrong facts and figures as admittedly the price advertised was a tentative one. He has, however, urged that in the light of a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr., (1997-3)117 P.L.R. 261, it was open to the allottees to challenge an arbitrary fixation of the price and that in any case before any additional price could be determined, the allottees were entitled to a hearing. It has also been pointed out that in this situation, the proper remedy would be to remit the case to the Board so that a proper price fixation can be made, after notice to the appellants. We find merit in this plea. 5. We, therefore, allow L.P.A. No.732 of 1995 filed by the appellants-Mathura Prashad and Ors. but dismiss the appeals, filed by the Board. Annexure P.5 is accordingly quashed. We further direct that while re-determining the price of the flats the broad principles laid down in the aforesaid Judgments will be kept in mind by the board Dasti.