Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 903 (MP)

Dragendra Singh Jadon v. M. P. Housing Board

2013-08-02

S.K.GANGELE

body2013
ORDER S.K. Gangele , J. The petitioners have filed this petition against the communication dt. 26.3.2010 (Annexure P/1). By the aforesaid communication, the respondent Board has directed the petitioners to pay cost of Rs. 23.03 lacs of the house allotted to the petitioners. 2. Respondent Board invited applications for registration of sell of HIG houses at Deen Dayal Nagar, Gwalior by issuing advertisement dt. 5.10.2007. The estimated cost of the HIG house in the advertisement was mentioned as Rs. 13.37 lacs. The petitioners applied for the same and they were registered with the respondent Board and they deposited amount of Rs. 1,34,000/- as registration fee. 3. As per the petitioners, they deposited the amount in installments as ordered by the respondent Board. Thereafter, the petitioners were informed vide Annexure P/4 that the cost of construction would be Rs. 17.30 lacs. The petitioners paid the aforesaid amount on different dates as mentioned in the petition. Thereafter, the petitioners were allotted the house and again vide Annexure P/1 the petitioners were directed to pay a total cost of Rs. 23.03 lacs. As per the petitioners, the escalation of cost by the respondent Board is arbitrary and illegal and without any basis. 4. The respondent Board in its reply submitted that in the advertisement, it was mentioned that the final fixation of the cost shall be made in accordance with the guidelines of the Collector and the actual cost of construction whichever is higher. A meeting was held on 11.1.2010 for final fixation of the cost of the house in regard to 14 HIG Delux Sector G, Deen Dayal Nagar, Gwalior. After considering all the aspects, the committee fixed the price of the house of Rs. 23.03 lacs. It is less than the market price because the rate of the land at Deen Dayal Nagar is Rs. 11,000/- per sq. mtr. The committee has taken into consideration the cost of land, construction cost, service tax, maintenance and security etc. There is no arbitrariness in fixing the price. 5. It is mentioned in the advertisement (Annexure R/1) that the actual cost of the house shall be intimated after completion of the construction and the decision of the Commissioner, Housing Board shall be binding. A copy of the proceeding of the committee has been filed as Annexure R/4. There is no arbitrariness in fixing the price. 5. It is mentioned in the advertisement (Annexure R/1) that the actual cost of the house shall be intimated after completion of the construction and the decision of the Commissioner, Housing Board shall be binding. A copy of the proceeding of the committee has been filed as Annexure R/4. It is mentioned in the proceeding that the cost of the land and construction has been taken into account by the Board and thereafter the total cost of the house has been determined. Following factors have been taken into consideration by the respondent Board in fixing the price:- No. Item Details 1. 14 HIG(Dx) House in G Sector, D.D.Nagar Gwalior 2. Number of House Taken up 14 Nos. 3. Source of Fund S.F.S. 4. Date of Commencement of 30-9-2008 5. Expected date of Completion 29-12-2009 6. Anticipated date of allotment 31-3-2010 7. Period of Capitalised interest 31-3-2010 8. Size 12.00 x 18.00 m Area 216.00 sq.mt. Rate of Collector Guide Line 09-10 Rs. 3300.- Per sq. mt. Addl. (Rs. 330/-) Rs. 3630 sq. mt. Amount            (A) 7,84,080.00 9. Building Plinth area as per actual G.F.     99.79 Porch   8.77 F.F.      30.73 Total    139.29 sq. m Cost of construction 12,85,714.00 Contingencies @ 3% 38,571.00 Supervision Charges @ 3% 1,85,399.00 Misc. Charges etc. 6000.00 Document charges 3000 Total    (B) 15,18,684.00 Total (A) + (B) 23,02,764.00 Say- 23.03 6. From the perusal of the proceedings, it reflects that the Respondent Board has considered the different aspects and fixed the price accordingly. It was mentioned in the advertisement that the final price of the house shall be fixed after finalisation of the construction. It means that initially price mentioned in the advertisement was tentative one and it is quite natural because due to escalation of price of raw material, the price has been increased. 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board and Others Vs. Sea Shore Apartments Owners' Welfare Association reported in (2008) 3 SCC 21 has held as under in regard to price fixation by the Housing Board of Tamil Nadu:- “In the present case, the amount of compensation was paid to the landowners as per the award but it was enhanced in reference proceedings which was upheld by the Supreme Court. Sea Shore Apartments Owners' Welfare Association reported in (2008) 3 SCC 21 has held as under in regard to price fixation by the Housing Board of Tamil Nadu:- “In the present case, the amount of compensation was paid to the landowners as per the award but it was enhanced in reference proceedings which was upheld by the Supreme Court. It is also clear from the scheme initially prepared i.e. seven types scheme and fifteen types scheme which was subsequently finalised, there was difference in plinth area as also ground area. When the names of the applicants were registered, it was clarified that the price indicated was "tentative price" and that the same was subject to "final price" to be fixed by the Board. In any case, when the Scheme was altered from seven types to fifteen types of flats, it was stated that the amount shown was merely "tentative selling price". The intending purchasers, therefore, were aware of the fact that the final price was to be fixed by the Board. In fact an agreement to that effect was executed by all prospective allottees wherein they agreed that they would pay the amount which would be finally fixed by the Board. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the allottees were not aware of the said condition and that they were compelled to make payment and thus were treated unfairly or unreasonably by the Board.” 8. In the present case, it was mentioned in the advertisement that the final price be fixed by the Board after completion of construction and the petitioners are bound by the terms and conditions of advertisement. The details of price fixation have been mentioned in the proceedings of the committee and after perusal of the aforesaid facts, it could not be said that the Board has not taken the relevant factors into consideration. Hence, the fixation of price is not arbitrary and illegal. It is also a fact that it is much lesser than the actual market value. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this court in the case of Surendra Singh Rana Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2013(1) MPLJ 340 . 10. In the aforesaid judgment, the court has observed that the Board can not fix the price arbitrarily. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this court in the case of Surendra Singh Rana Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2013(1) MPLJ 340 . 10. In the aforesaid judgment, the court has observed that the Board can not fix the price arbitrarily. However, in the present case I have come to the conclusion that the action of the Board is not arbitrary. Hence, in my opinion, there is no merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.