M. P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board v. Sudha Jain
2014-07-31
ALOK VERMA, RAJENDRA MENON
body2014
DigiLaw.ai
ORDER Menon, J. -- 1. By a common order passed on 21.11.2013 the learned writ Court disposed of about 43 writ petitions and the main order was passed in Writ Petition No.15692/2013 (Dr. Sudha Jain and others v. State of M.P. and others). 2. As the questions of law decided by writ Court is identical in nature with slight variation in the facts, all these writ appeals which have been filed under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Based on the different areas where the disputed properties are located and based on some difference in facts the cases have been bunched together in five different groups. However, the only question of dispute in all the cases are with regard to fixation of price for the land based on the Collector guide lines for a particular year : a. The first bunch consists of the following Writ Appeals No.1550/2013, Writ Appeal 1563/2013 and Writ Appeal 1565/2013 and they pertain to allotment of Nice Duplex/ Nice Triplex/ Nice Duplex (Corner) in Riviera township, Bhopal. The controversy in this class of category of cases pertains to price fixation of land with regard to 36 houses which are either Duplex or Triples as indicated herein above. b. The second bunch of cases pertains to allotment of 8 HIG Senior Houses situated in Chhindwara and the cases in this category are Writ Appeals No.175/2014, Writ Appeal 176/2014, Writ Appeal 192/2014, Writ Appeal174/2014, Writ Appeal No.179/2014, Writ Appeal 178/2014, Writ Appeal 199/2014 and Writ Appeal No.177/2014. c. The third bunch of cases pertaining to allotment of 112 houses under a scheme for the Economic Weaker Section, in the town of Chhindwara and these cases are Writ Appeals No. 170/2014, Writ Appeal 103/2014, Writ Appeal 104/2014, Writ Appeal 180/2014, Writ Appeal 171/2014, Writ Appeal 172/2014, Writ Appeal 134/2014, Writ Appeal 135/2014, Writ Appeal 136/2014, Writ Appeal 137/2014, Writ Appeal 138/2014, Writ Appeal 139/2014, Writ Appeal 200/2014, Writ Appeal 197/2014, Writ Appeal 198/2014, Writ Appeal 196/2014, Writ Appeal 111/2014, Writ Appeal 124/2014, Writ Appeal 114/2014, Writ Appeal 110/2014, Writ Appeal 112/2014, Writ Appeal 115/2014, Writ Appeal 113/2014, Writ Appeal 125/2014, Writ Appeal 123/2014, Writ Appeal 121/2014 and Writ Appeal No.122/2014.
d. The 4th category of cases pertains to allotment of 25 HIG Duplex houses in Hari Singh Gaur Nagar, Sagar and these cases are Writ Appeals No. 206/2014, Writ Appeal No.203/2014 and Writ Appeal No.205/2014. e. The Fifth and last category is a single case bearing No. Writ Appeal No.144/2014 pertaining to allotment of a house in the City of Satna. 4. The question of law considered and decided by the learned writ Court which have been called in question in all these writ appeals pertains to fixation of price for the land and the principle applied by the appellant Board by basing it on the Collector guidelines issued for the purpose of assessing market value of a property under the Stamp Act. The main controversy that was evaluated and decided by the learned writ Court pertains to the method adopted for fixing the price of the land and linking the cost price of the land with the Collector guidelines prevailing in the year 2011-2012. The petitioners in each of the cases had challenged the pricing policy pertaining to the land mainly on the ground that linking of price of land and fixing it in accordance to the Collector guidelines which keep on changing every year is not correct and it was their contention before the writ Court that the pricing of the land should be based on the price of land prevailing when allotment of the house as was made to them after draw of lottery. It was there case that in a process for allotment under the Self Financing Scheme such a procedure cannot be followed. These assertions of each of the petitioners having been accepted by the learned writ Court and mandamus having been issued to the appellant Board to fix the price as it existed on the date of issuance of allotment letter, these appeals have been filed by the Board. 5. In each of the appeals it is the contention of the Board that pricing has been done in accordance to the scheme, the rules and the policy of the Board and the so called allotment said to have been made in favour of the allottees based on which the learned writ Court has decided the controversy is not the allotment but is only a registration granted to them which is misconstrued to be a allotment by the learned writ Court. 6.
6. Having crystallized the controversy as indicated herein above, we now proceed to narrate certain facts which may be relevant for deciding these appeals and thereafter to go into the question of law and disputes of fact, if any, involved in the matter as certain facts which are different in each of the cases may be relevant to be taken note of. 7. The main feature in all the cases are that the houses allotted in each of the cases are based on the self financing scheme and the appellant Board has formulated its own policy for the purpose of implementing its scheme for allotment of houses. Annexure P-4 at page 159 of the paper book is the scheme for allotment of houses under various schemes of the Board and the procedure and method for allotment of houses under the self financing scheme is also indicated therein. 8. As the said scheme is very much relevant for deciding the controversy involved, it may be appropriate to take note of the peculiar features of the scheme. It is indicated in Annexure P-4 that for allotment of houses under the self financing scheme the prospective applicant has to get himself registered, based on an advertisement which is issued indicating the features of the project, the price and other particulars of the houses etc. The advertisement is to be published in the newspaper, the prospective purchaser will have to submit the application for registration and at the time of registration, he will have to deposit 10% of the sale price as is notified in the advertisement. It is further provided in the scheme that after his application is accepted for registration, the remaining 90% of the price for the house and land will have to be given in 4 or 5 instalments during the process of construction or as the Board may decide and finally if in the end there is any difference in the final sale price determined after evaluating the actual cost of construction etc. then the difference will have to be given before possession is handed over and the transfer affected through a registered instrument.
then the difference will have to be given before possession is handed over and the transfer affected through a registered instrument. The scheme provides that the applicant will have an option to deposit the entire cost price of the house in one instalment at the time of registration and if he does so, he will be entitled to certain interest at the rate of 8% on the amount so deposited. It is further indicated that transfer of the house and land shall be affected only after the transfer deed is executed. Various eventualities in the matter of recovery of penal interest at the rate of 16% in case of default in paying the instalment and various other factors are indicated in the scheme. A provision in the matter of options available to the applicant for withdrawal is also provided in case they do not agree with the final price fixation. 9. Thereafter at page 162 it is indicated that advertisement shall be issued in the Newspaper by the Board and calling for interested persons to submit their application for registration. The application along with requisite application fee shall be submitted within the time stipulated, 10% of the proposed cost price through challan in the notified bank at the time of registration. It is indicated that if the number of applications received is equal to the houses to be allotted, the houses shall be allotted to the applicants as may be eligible, but if the number of applications received are more than the available houses, the eligible applicants will be selected by draw of lottery and after intimation to them they may proceed to deposit the instalments as may be fixed. It is indicated in the Scheme that registration is only provisional. It does not give them any right and the registered allottees has to make payment of the actual cost price which may be worked out after completion of work. It is indicated in page 163 that the entire amount, as indicated in the advertisement, or as may be determined will have to be deposited before possession of the house and its transfer is affected. Certain provisions are made in the scheme to say that the price fixed in the advertisement and offered at the time of registration is only provisional and is liable to be changed as and when the work progresses depending on the cost escalation.
Certain provisions are made in the scheme to say that the price fixed in the advertisement and offered at the time of registration is only provisional and is liable to be changed as and when the work progresses depending on the cost escalation. In the scheme it is stipulated that the Board will make endeavor to ensure that the final pricing does not increase beyond 10% of the proposed price as indicated in the advertisement. It is based on these provisions of the scheme that in all the cases, that the advertisement were issued and the petitioners submitted their offers and were granted the so called registration. At this stage it may be indicated that even though in the order passed by the learned writ Court, this is treated to be a allotment but in these appeals, it is the specific case of the appellant Board that this is only a registration of the prospective allottee and not a final allotment. This is one of the controversy involved which we would advert to at an appropriate stage. We have only indicated the scheme as answer to the disputed question would depend on the interpretation and consideration of this scheme. 10. Now we may go into the facts of each category of cases and indicate them as they appear on record. In the first category of cases pertaining to Riviera township, Bhopal it is seen that the land originally belonged to the Veterinary Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh. A Memorandum of understanding was entered into between this department and the appellant Board and about 13.71 acres of land was transferred by this memorandum of undertaking to the Board and the cost for this transfer indicated in this memorandum is 10.95 crores at the rate of Rs.1,972/- per sq.m. After taking possession of this entire land in a phased manner its development has taken place and apart from the 36 houses in dispute three other categories of houses have been constructed in this land.
132 flats have been constructed along with the 36 bungalows and construction of these 132 flats started earlier and the land for both these projects were developed together and in fact from the map Annexure P-14 available at page 105 of the paper book it is seen that 36 bungalows are not constructed separately in one lot, but they are constructed in three different locations and are in between the 132 flats/houses. Both these 132 flats/ houses and 36 bungalows (in dispute) are located in Phase I and entire land for this purpose has been developed together. According to the respondents/ petitioners the value of land collected from the prospective purchaser of 132 houses is Rs.6,410/- per sq.m. That apart, 146 houses have been constructed which have been allotted to the Members of Parliament, MLA’s etc. and according to the petitioners this allotment made in March 2007 is at a cost of Rs.7,825/- per sq.m of land. So far as land for the 36 Bungalows is concerned, documents evidencing these as Annexure P-34 pages 148, 152 and 153 of the paper book, show that when the advertisement was initially issued in the year 2007, the cost of the land was shown as Rs.9,000/- per sq.m. It was thereafter increased to Rs.12,500/- per sq.m. then to Rs.15,000/- per sq.m. and finally to Rs.30,000/- sq.m. Be it as it may be, it is the case of each of the petitioners that originally when the advertisement was issued and when the offers were called for, for these 36 houses in November 2007, the cost price of Nice Duplex as indicated as Rs.40 lacs, that of Nice Triplex is Rs.45 lacs and of Nice Duplex Corner at Rs.53 lacs and the construction cost was indicated as Rs.9,800/- per sq.m. and the cost of the land is Rs.12,500/- per sq.m. By adding to them certain supervision charges etc. the total price was fixed. It is the case of the petitioners that they applied in pursuance to the advertisement and on 14.12.2007, after drawal of lottery each of the eligible applicant was communicated on 20th December 2007 vide Annexure P-9 the fact about their registration for allotment of a house. 11.
the total price was fixed. It is the case of the petitioners that they applied in pursuance to the advertisement and on 14.12.2007, after drawal of lottery each of the eligible applicant was communicated on 20th December 2007 vide Annexure P-9 the fact about their registration for allotment of a house. 11. According to the petitioners, as they had already deposited 10% of the cost price at the time of registration, they started depositing the remaining instalments in accordance to the advertisement issued and the demand of the Board made in its communication dated 20th December, 2007 (Annexure A-9), and it is the case of each of the petitioners that they have deposited the entire cost price as indicated in the allotment letter (Annexure A-9) by December 2009. They say that either in instalments or in one lump sum payment, the price has been deposited. It is their case that after they had deposited the amount in the year 2007 and when most of the amount was deposited, nothing was done for a period of more than two years, when all of a sudden a communication was received by each of the allottees on 18.6.2009, by separate letters – Annexure R-4 available at page 515 of the paper book, to say that the cost price as was earlier notified, has increased and it was indicated that the price which was earlier notified in the advertisement as 53 lacs has now increased to 66.17 lacs for Nice Duplex (Corner); to 43.95 lacs from 40 lacs for Nice Duplex; and, from 45 lacs to 55.87 lacs for Nice Triplex. In this communication, it was indicated that now the cost price of the land which was originally notified as Rs.12,500/- per square meter is increased to Rs.15,000/- per square metre. It is the case of the allottees that many of them protested and they have brought on record certain protest letters for example -- one of the allottees Smt. Kavita Kumar in her communication dated 2.7.2009 has objected to the increase and she says that in pursuance to the advertisement the entire amount of cost indicated has been deposited by her, i.e., Rs.40 lacs and now without doing anything for more than two years and without completing the project within a period of 18 months, as indicated in the advertisement, asking for the difference in the price is not justified.
It is seen from the records that each of the petitioners protested with regard to the exhorbitant increase in the cost price of the land. 12. Similar is the situation with all other allottees and available on record are certain objection of most of the allottees, which goes to show that they had communicated that they had deposited the entire amount i.e. cost price of the house, either in instalments or in one lump sum payment, much before this notice was issued on 18.6.2009. The communication made by the allottees is available on record from Annexure R-5 onwards. 13. However, it is the case of the Board that even though some protest was received as indicated hereinabove, most of the allottees agreed for the increase. Be it as it may be, after the aforesaid action was taken when the construction was completed and the final call was made, each of the petitioners was informed that apart from increase in the construction cost, now they have to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- per square metre, as cost of the land. As a consequence thereof, for nice duplex (corner), the cost price which was initially shown as Rs.53 lacs was shown to be 101.02 lacs. The cost price of a nice duplex ordinary which was originally show as Rs.40 lacs was increased to Rs.73.17 lacs; and, that of nice triplex was increased to 79.84 lacs. The cost of construction which was originally shown as 9,800/- per square metre increased to Rs.13,000/- per square metre and certain other charges were also incorporated. 14. A detailed chart indicating the manner in which the price fluctuation was undertaken by the Board is reproduced by the learned Single Judge in page 21 of his order, in a tabulated form, and this goes to show that originally when the advertisement was issued, the cost of the plot was Rs.12,500/- per square metre in the year 2009, it increased to Rs.15,000/- per square metre; and, finally now the claim is for a price of Rs.30,000/- per square metre. According to the Board, the price of the land at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per square metre is fixed on the basis of the Collector Guidelines issued for the relevant year 2011-12, and in case of each of the petitioners it is their contention that this price fixation for the purpose of assessing the price of land is unsustainable.
According to the Board, the price of the land at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per square metre is fixed on the basis of the Collector Guidelines issued for the relevant year 2011-12, and in case of each of the petitioners it is their contention that this price fixation for the purpose of assessing the price of land is unsustainable. Applying the formulae laid down in the Collector Guidelines is not call for. This is an arbitrary and illegal decision. The petitioners have no objection in paying the construction cost at the rate of Rs.13,000/- per square metre, but they only object to the recovery of price of the land, on the basis of Collector Guidelines. For the same, the following contentions have been advanced by them : (a) The cost price of the land is fixed arbitrarily based on Collector guidelines even though there is no increase or expense incurred by the Board in the matter of development or upkeep of the land. It is stated that when the land was purchased from the Veterinary Department, the Board incurred an expense of Rs.1,972/- per square metre and they have fixed the price of the land at Rs.12,500/- at the time of issuing the advertisement after proper costing. Thereafter, they have not incurred any further expenses in the matter of development or change of the land, therefore, the arbitrary action for fixing such an exhorbitant price is unsustainable. (b) It is their contention that the allotment was made to them when the registration was accepted and thereafter the Board is precluded of its power to enhance the cost. 15. The second set of cases pertains to 10 senior HIG houses and the third set of cases pertains to 112 houses under the category of Economically Weaker Section (EWS). Both these schemes pertain to District of Chhindwara and as the advertisement and procedure followed in both these cases are identical, they are being dealt with together. 16. The common advertisement was issued with regard to both these schemes in the local Newspaper on 20th of May, 2008. In the advertisement it was stipulated that the willing applicants should submit their application along with the requisite fees and it was indicated that the eligible applicants/ allottees would be determined on the basis of the draw of lots through a lottery system.
In the advertisement it was stipulated that the willing applicants should submit their application along with the requisite fees and it was indicated that the eligible applicants/ allottees would be determined on the basis of the draw of lots through a lottery system. Each of the aspirants submitted their applications in the prescribed proforma and paid the requisite fees for registration. In this advertisement the proposed price for 10 senior HIG houses was indicated as Rs.15.67 lacs and the price for 112 EWS houses was notified as Rs.2.85 lacs. Thereafter in the advertisement it was also stipulated that after draw of lots is over, the eligible applicant will have to deposit certain amount (10% of the cost price) as indicated in the advertisement and it was classified as the registration fee. 17. After the advertisement was issued and as large number of applications were received, it seems that by draw of lots the eligible applicants/ allotees were determined and after determination of eligible applicants a communication was made to them. In the case of 10 HIG houses the communication was made to them on 11.1.2009, wherein it was indicated that with regard to the application submitted for registration it is to inform the applicant that he has been allotted a house in Chandangaon, District Chhindwara under the Self Financing Scheme. The proposed cost of the house is Rs.15.67 lacs and by the draw of lots through a lottery system, House No. (actual house number mentioned) has been allotted. It may be noted that in this communication it is clearly mentioned that a particular House is allotted. Thereafter a scheme for payment of instalments is indicated and it is stipulated that the first instalment after deducting the registration fee has to be deposited on or before 28.2.2010 amounting to Rs.3,52,500/-. The second instalment on 31.5.2010 amounting to Rs.3,52,500/- and a third instalment on or before 31.8.2010 amount to Rs.3,52,500/- and the final instalment before handing over of the possession also of Rs.3,52,500/-. Thereafter in the Note of this communication it was indicated that the exact cost shall be determined after the construction of the house is over and in Note 3 it was indicated that the price of the land is determined based on the standard size of the plot and there is possibility of increasing the price of land depending upon the size determined after final construction is made.
Similarly in the case of 112 EWS houses also a communication was made to all concerned in identical manner and they were also informed that they have been allotted a house under the lottery system and the amount has to be paid in accordance to the instalments indicated. Even though in their case the exact particulars of the house allotted to them was not indicated but all other factors with regard to payment of instalments etc. was communicated to them as was done in the case of 10 HIG allottees. 18. It is therefore, clear that even though in all the cases the appellants contend that there is no allotment and there is only a registration of the applications for considering the eligibility of a person but the procedure followed which is termed as registration indicates that certain allotment was made, instalments were fixed and all the aspirants paid the amount for the houses in accordance to the instalments fixed, some of them seem to have paid the entire amount in one instalment. That apart, in most of the cases house number etc. have also been indicated at this stage. 19. The fourth set of cases pertains to 25 HIG Complex situated in Harisingh Gaur Nagar, Sagar. In this case as was done in the case of houses pertaining to Chhindwara and Bhopal, advertisement was issued, registration was done and after registration only a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-was paid and thereafter the documents available on record goes to show that various communications were made and it was indicated that for the purpose of development of land and with regard to land acquisition also certain formalities have to be completed and the distinguishing feature in this case is that except for demanding a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as initial payment which was paid by the petitioners, no other installment was fixed and there are communications to show that with regard to price of the land, the development activities in the land and assessment of compensation to be paid on land acquisition was in progress. 20. The fifth category of case is an isolated case being Writ Appeal No.144/2014. This pertains to allotment of junior HIG house in District Satna. An advertisement was issued in this case also and based on the same the petitioner was granted a registration vide letter dated 22.4.2008.
20. The fifth category of case is an isolated case being Writ Appeal No.144/2014. This pertains to allotment of junior HIG house in District Satna. An advertisement was issued in this case also and based on the same the petitioner was granted a registration vide letter dated 22.4.2008. The estimated cost of the house in this communication was shown as Rs.11.90 lacs. However, vide another letter dated 20.10.2008 -- Annexure P-3, the petitioner was informed that the cost of the house is now assessed at Rs.15.03 lacs and, therefore, she should give an undertaking in this regard. The petitioner is said to have given the undertaking in accordance to this communication and thereafter vide Annexure P-4 dated 16.7.2009, the instalments were fixed for payment of the amount of the amount of Rs.15.03 lacs and it is the case of the petitioner that she deposited the entire amount as per the communication -- Annexure P-5 dated 7.4.2012, further amount was also deposited by the petitioner before 20.4.2012. Even though the house was allotted to various other persons, it was never allotted to her. On the contrary by the impugned communication -- Annexure P-1 dated 4.5.2013, she was informed that now the cost of the house has gone upto to Rs.20.39 lacs and, therefore, she should deposit the remaining amount of Rs.4.6 lacs. 21. On going through the procedure followed in each of the cases as indicated herein above, it is seen that except the cases pertaining to 25 HIG situated in Hari Singh Gaur Nagar, Sagar in all other category of cases after the right of each of the applicants was determined by a lottery system, they were communicated about their registration and allotment, eventhough in the form of a registered allottee, instalments were fixed, options were given either for paying the instalment as per the instalments indicated or by paying a lump sum amount in accordance to the scheme and availing the benefit of 8% interest. All the applicants/allottees adhered to the request made.
All the applicants/allottees adhered to the request made. Some of them paid the entire amount in one instalment and others paid the instalments within the schedule time and it is when they were paying the instalments that the impugned action was taken for informing them that now the price of the house to be allotted to them has increased in view of the assessment of the price of the land as per Collector guide lines issued in the respective district for the year 2011-2012. 22. In the backdrop of the aforesaid fact, it was the finding recorded by the learned writ Court that allotments have been made to each of the aspirants and once allotment is made the price of the land fixed at the time of allotment cannot be changed. The learned writ Court has held that except for recovering any actual expenses incurred for the purpose of development of the land or for any extra cost incurred for construction, based on the Collector guidelines only the value of the land on market price cannot be demanded after the allotments. To this, the argument of the appellant Board is that the learned writ Court has misconstrued the registration as allotment, in fact there is no allotment in accordance with law. What has been done is only a registration, actual allotment is to be done after the houses are complete and final instalment is paid and therefore, before this stage the price of the land can be increased. This is the moot question to be answered in these appeals? 23. That apart, the learned writ Court has also gone into the question of tenability of Collector guidelines with reference to the provisions of section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act and the finding recorded is that the Collector guideline is nothing but a procedure for assessing the stamp duty to be paid on an instrument. It is only a prima facie assessment of the cost of the land or the house, for purpose of paying duty on the instrument is not value of the land and, therefore, cannot be used for recovering market value. 24.
It is only a prima facie assessment of the cost of the land or the house, for purpose of paying duty on the instrument is not value of the land and, therefore, cannot be used for recovering market value. 24. Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners/ allottees invited our attention to various documents and material available on record -- namely the advertisement dated 9.11.2007 -- Annexure P-8, available at page 177; the Brochure -- Annexure P-4 at pages 159 to 163; the transfer of land made by the Veterinary Department; price incurred and calculation of the cost price made for the land at Rs.9,000/-per square metre vide Annexure P-7; the declaration made in the Vidhan Sabha with regard to the land; the self-financing scheme; the main features of the Scheme and tried to argue that the fixation of the price for the land based on the Collector Guidelines is unsustainable. 25. Learned Senior Advocate took us through the reasonings given by the learned Single Judge to say that the price of the land fixed by the Board is nothing but an arbitrary decision and the learned writ Court has not committed any error. 26. On the contrary, it was the case of the Board represented by Shri P.K. Kaurav, Advocate, that what was intimated to the petitioners vide communication dated 20.12.2007, (in the case of Revera Township) is only a fact about their registration; learned counsel pointed out that there was no allotment of the house as canvassed by the petitioners/allottees. Applications were called for, a process of registration was undertaken and when the registration was done, it was clearly brought to the notice of each of the prospective purchaser/allottees that the price fixed at the time of registration is provisional and tentative, it is not final and is subject to increase based on the escalation in the cost of construction etc, including the escalation in the land price.
It is his contention that from time to time the cost price for construction and the price of the land increased and, therefore, ultimately when the construction was completed and possession was to be handed over after execution of the requisite deed, the construction cost and the cost of the land was assessed, this was done in accordance to the statutory powers of the Board and, therefore, in demanding the price of the land based on the Collector Guidelines, it is emphasized by Shri P.K. Kaurav that the Board has not committed any error. 27. Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned counsel appearing for the Board, invited out attention to the MP Griha Nirman Mandal Act, 1972; its amendment Chapter IV of the same; sections 47, 50 and the powers of the Board to fix the cost price; so also M.P. Housing Board Accounts Rules, 1991, the provisions of rules 5.0 to 5.11 thereof; and the costing scheme stipulated in the statutory rule to say that under rule 5.7.4, it is clearly stipulated that the Board is authorized to determine the sale price of its houses, based on the actual determination of amount incurred and the appreciation in land value can be included for determination of the sale price. Based on these Rules, Shri Kaurav tried to emphasize that the petitioners cannot claim payment of land price contrary to something which was prevalent at the time when the sale was to be executed after construction. Learned counsel invited out attention to circular dated 24.10.2008, to canvass a contention that it is clearly indicated in this circular based on the decision of the Board that for the purpose of transfer of land, the Collector Guidelines would be made applicable; and in demanding the same the Board has not committed any error. Learned counsel took us through the Circular and scheme in detail to say that it clearly contemplates that the price fixed at the time of registration is not the final price; the final pricing is done by the Price Fixation Committee, which is determined at the time of completion of construction and it is at that time that the costing of the actual land price is undertaken.
It was the case of the Board and Shri P.K. Kaurav vehemently argued that the Board has only demanded for the price as per the terms and conditions agreed upon and has not committed any error. It is his case that the Board is well within its right in demanding the price of the land, based on Collector Guidelines as that is the actual value of the land, when transfer of the land is to be undertaken after construction is completed. 28. Shri P. K. Kourav, who appeared for the housing board along with Shri R. K. Samaiya, Shri Himanshu Mishra, Shri G. P. Dubey who represented the appellant Housing Board in various appeals argued that in each of the case final allotment has not been made. What was communicated to the respondents was that they have been provisionally selected for allotment and, therefore, their name has been registered, they have paid certain amount towards confirmation of their registration, allotment is to be made after the final call is given and before the final call for allotment and payment of the actual cost price of house and land is not made, the Board has a right to seek the actual market value of the land as determined at this stage along with actual construction cost of the house. It is their case that as per the scheme and the communication made, each of the respondents had agreed to this proposal of the Board and now they cannot go back on their acceptance. It is the case of the appellant in each of the case that the learned writ Court misconstrued the registration to be allotment and applied the law laid down in various cases which pertains to questions determined by the Supreme Court in the matter of enhancement of price after the actual allotment is made. It is a specific case of the Board that in all these cases, no allotment has been made, only registration has been granted. That apart, it is their contention that as the land is being transferred to the allottees on a particular day, the value of land and its market value as on that day can be claimed by the Board, as this is the value of the land being transferred to the aspirants and, therefore, the Collector guide lines is applicable. 29.
That apart, it is their contention that as the land is being transferred to the allottees on a particular day, the value of land and its market value as on that day can be claimed by the Board, as this is the value of the land being transferred to the aspirants and, therefore, the Collector guide lines is applicable. 29. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in support of their contentions placed reliance on the following judgments : Ramesh Chand Bansal v. District Magistrate [ (1999)5 SCC 62 ]; R.Sai Bharthi v. J.Jayalalitha [ (2004)2 SCC 9 ]; Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer [ (1994)4 SCC 595 ]; Land Acquisition Officer v. Jasti Rohini [ (1995)1 SCC 717 ]; U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties [ (1996)3 SCC 124 ]; Lal Chand v. Union of India [ (2009) 15 SCC 769 ]; V.N. Devadoss v. Chief Revenue Control [ (2009)7 SCC 438 ]; Kaliaperumal v. Rajagopal [ (2009)4 SCC 193 ]; Delhi Development Authority v. Pushpendra Kumar Jain [(1994) Supp. (3) SCC 494]; M.P. Housing Board v. Anil Kumar Khiwani [ (2005)10 SCC 796 ]; Indore Development Authority v. Sadhna Agrawal [ (1995)3 SCC 1 ]; Nisha Singhal v. M.P. Housing Board [ AIR 1996 MP 212 ]; DDA v. Joing Action Committee [ (2008)2 SCC 672 ]; Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajay Pal Singh [ (1989)2 SCC 116 ]; Delhi Development Authority v. Pushpendra K. Jain [(1994) Supp. (3) 494]; S. Srinivasa Murthy v. Karnataka Housing Board [ (2012)8 SCC 424 ]; Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Sea Shore Apartments [ (2008)3 SCC 21 ]; Bareilly Development Authority v. Vrida Gujarati [ (2004)4 SCC 606 ]; Chief Administrator v. Shabnam Virk [ (2006)4 SCC 74 ]; BSNL v. BPL Mobile [(2008)13 SCC 597]; Central Inland Water Transport Corporate Limited v. Brojo Nath [ (1986)3 SCC 156 ]; Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Service Society [ (2011)11 SCC 13 ]; Premji Bhai Parmar v. DDA [ (1980)2 SCC 129 ]; Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajay Pal Singh [ (1989)2 SCC 116 ]; Naseem Bano v. State of U.P. [ AIR 1993 SC 2592 ]; State of Punjab v. Dhanjit Singh Sandhu [Civil Appeals No.5698-5699/2009]; and State of U.P. v. Chaudhari Ranbeer Singh [ (2008)5 SCC 550 ]. 30.
30. Shri P. K. Kourav took us through each and every judgment as indicated herein above and submitted that the learned writ Court has relied upon these judgments and he tried to distinguish each and every case by contending that the application of the case and the principles laid down therein, in the facts and circumstances of the present dispute is wholly unsustainable. He refers to the scheme for allotment of house under the Self Financing Scheme, the Rules of 1994 and argued that all these provisions permit the Board to fix the price of the land at the time when the final allotment is made after the house is contructed and as the respondents in each of the cases has agreed to this scheme, they are now estopped from going back on the same. In the case of 30 houses pertaining to Revera Township, Bhopal, it was specifically emphasized by him that when communication was made for increase of the price, the applicants/allottees give their consent for payment of the cost of the land as per Collector guidelines and that they are now estopped to wriggle out from the same. He has given a written note, in support of his contention. 31. Shri R. N. Singh, learned senior counsel who has represented most of the respondents, Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel who appears for the respondents in Chhindwara case and Shri Hemant Shrivastava and Shri Vijay Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that what is termed as a registration by the Board is in fact a allotment and once the allotment is made, the law does not permit the Board to increase the price of the land. That apart, it was emphasized by them that in each of the case, they have no objection in paying the actual cost incurred by the Board due to increase in the cost of the construction or any expenses incurred for development of the land etc. but they say that merely because the Collector guide lines has come into force, without any extra cost being incurred for the purpose of development of land, demanding the land price as per Collector guidelines is not feasible as it is nothing but undue enrichment by a Statutory Board created for public welfare.
but they say that merely because the Collector guide lines has come into force, without any extra cost being incurred for the purpose of development of land, demanding the land price as per Collector guidelines is not feasible as it is nothing but undue enrichment by a Statutory Board created for public welfare. They submit that under the Self Financing Scheme, this is not permissible and further contending that the arbitrary decision has been taken by the Board in fixing the price of land as per Collector guidelines, they sought for interference. It was submitted by taking us through the judgment of the learned Single Judge in detail that the learned writ Court has dealt with each aspect of the matter in accordance to law and therefore, no indulgence be made into the matter. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the same judgments as are mentioned in para 28 above in support of their contention. 32. We have considered the rival contentions and we find that the moot questions which warrants consideration in these appeals are : (a) As to whether in fact and in law in each of the cases allotment of houses was made or the procedure followed as contended by the Board is only a process of registration and not allotment? (b) Whether the Board is entitled to claim the price of the land as per Collector guidelines without incurring any extra expenditure on its development or otherwise? and (c) Whether under the Self Financing Scheme the market value of the land can be determined in the manner done by the Board which has a result of there being total uncertainity in the price of the land which fluctuates from time to time? 33. We have considered the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties at length. All the cases before us are cases pertaining to allotment of residential accommodation under the Self Financing Scheme. The scheme has been filed by the parties and already indicated herein above. It is Annexure P-4 at page 159 of the paper book. 34. The concept of Self Financing Scheme and its salient features have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar Khiwani (supra). In the aforesaid case it has been held that under the Self Financing Scheme cost plays an important role.
It is Annexure P-4 at page 159 of the paper book. 34. The concept of Self Financing Scheme and its salient features have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar Khiwani (supra). In the aforesaid case it has been held that under the Self Financing Scheme cost plays an important role. The various units of the building scheme are self financed. The buyer of the unit has to fund the cost of construction. Under such a scheme the buyer is not entitled to buy a unit at a price which is less than the cost of construction. It is held by the Supreme Court that under the Self Financing Scheme pricing is generally based on the cost of construction unlike outright sale made of a house after the construction is complete, where pricing is market related. That being so, the Supreme Court itself has held that in a Self Financing Scheme a cost is determined on the basis of cost of construction and the price is not market related as is generally the case of transfer in other housing schemes. The only restriction on a buyer in a Self Financing Scheme is that he does not have a right to purchase any unit at a price lower than the actual construction price. Another feature of the Self Financing Scheme is that even if there is a failure on the part of one contributor to pay the cost, this cost difference is distributed amongst the other stake holders. If we go through the aforesaid judgment and Self Financing Scheme as laid down by the Board, it is clear that the Board may be entitled to recover the entire actual cost spent by them in making the purchase of the land but by introducing a concept of market valuation or market price, they are not entitled to enhance the cost and claim escalated price without there being any actual escalation in the price paid by the Board or expenses in the matter of construction or purchase of land or its development. It is this aspect of the matter which has been taken note of by the learned Single Judge while dwelling to consider the question involved in the matter.
It is this aspect of the matter which has been taken note of by the learned Single Judge while dwelling to consider the question involved in the matter. In para 32 of the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, he has found that the Board has to establish that they had incurred extra cost for the land and therefore, they are charging market value. That being so, we are of the considered view that once it is an established position that the transfer of the property in the present case and the entire scheme was based on a Self Financing Scheme, recovering market value for the land without there being any actual expenses incurred by the Board was not correct. 35. The board is a creation of the statute, it is an organ of a State and primarily established for providing housing facility to the citizens of the State on terms and conditions as are financially viable and within the reach of the common man. The Board is not a commercial business venture of the State Government like other builders or estate agent and is not expected to be a profit earning venture. It is only required to get such profit which is reasonable and which is required for its functioning and adequate enough for its maintenence. The amount required for carrying out the activities of the Board are calculated while implementing a particular scheme or project and it is never the intention of the legislature to permit the Board to engage in commercial activities which is detrimental to public interest. The decision of the Board has to be reasonable and in public interest. If the act of the Board in the present case in the matter of fixing the price of land is evaluated, it would be seen that this is not in confirmity with the aims and objects of the Board and, therefore, we have to term it as an arbitrary and illegal decision, which is unsustainable. The increase in price of land is exorbitant and is not justified. The only reason that came forth at the time of hearing was that the Board is facing financial crisis and loss and is trying to make it up, due to which the impugned actions seems to have been taken.
The increase in price of land is exorbitant and is not justified. The only reason that came forth at the time of hearing was that the Board is facing financial crisis and loss and is trying to make it up, due to which the impugned actions seems to have been taken. Mismanagement of Board which resulted in financial crisis, cannot be a ground for acting in a manner so as to cause undue harassment and financial burden the consumer and saddle them with additional financial liability which is not warranted in the given set of circumstances. This is also a reason which compels us to hold that the action of the Board in applying the Collector guidelines in the present set of case is not proper. 36. The next question which warrants consideration is as to whether the allotment in question which is claimed to be only a registration by the appellant Board is in fact a allotment and, therefore, once the allotment is made the Board is debarred from raising the construction cost or claiming enhanced price of the land. 37. From the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in various cases which were read during the course of hearing and on a perusal of the order passed by the learned writ Court, we find that from para 33 onwards the learned writ Court has gone into the question and has held that once the allotment is made, the price cannot be increased and for holding so, the principles laid down in various cases including the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Corporation (supra), and Delhi Development Authority (supra), case has been relied upon. Learned counsel for the appellant Shri P. K. Kourav also admitted this position, but he argue that in the present case, the learned writ Court has misconstrued the registration granted to be an allotment which according to him is a perverse finding. 38.
Learned counsel for the appellant Shri P. K. Kourav also admitted this position, but he argue that in the present case, the learned writ Court has misconstrued the registration granted to be an allotment which according to him is a perverse finding. 38. If the Scheme for allotment as contained in Annexure R-4 is considered, it would indicate that in the Scheme a provision is there for issuance of advertisement; calling for applications; drawing of lots and fixing the allottees; registering their names; simultaneously getting them to pay 10% of the cost price; and, thereafter fixing the instalments for payment of the remaining amount; the amount to be fixed in each installments is fixed; thereafter the allottee is given an option either to give the entire amount in one instalment in which case he is granted a benefit of 8% interest. There is nothing in the Scheme which goes to show that at the time of registration and when the entire schedule for payment of installment and the cost is determined, there is any other procedure for allotment. The only requirement thereafter is final possession and execution of the document. It is, therefore, clear that neither in the Scheme -- Annexure P-4 nor in the actual procedure followed by the Board in each of the case, is there anything to be done after the draw of lottery and registration is completed, which can be termed as a process for allotment of the house to a prospective allottee. Infact the process of registration is a process of allotment itself and in the procedure contemplated, it also provides for entering into an agreement at that point of time, but there is no agreement executed in any of the cases in hand. 39. The contention of Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned counsel for the appellants, that the process followed initially in each of the case is nothing but a registration and is not an allotment cannot be accepted by us. The procedure followed even though termed as registration by the Board is a process of allotment and in holding the same to be allotment the learned writ Court has not committed any error. 40.
The procedure followed even though termed as registration by the Board is a process of allotment and in holding the same to be allotment the learned writ Court has not committed any error. 40. It is clear from the scheme that for allotment of houses under the Self Financing Scheme, the appellant Board issues an advertisement, in the advertisement a fees is fixed which is to be deposited along with the application, the price of the house is indicated and the interested person is required to deposit 10% of the cost price at the time of registration. If the applications received are equal to the number of house available or less, allotment is made to eligible candidate and if the number is more than the available houses, then the prospective allottee is determined by draw of lot through a lottery system. After the lottery system is followed and the allottee is finalized, even though the communication (as available on record) information is given to the registered allottee, but along with this communication he is given a schedule for payment of instalments and instalments have been collected as per this schedule and in some cases an option for one time deposit on payment of interest at the rate of 8% is granted. Thereafter, when the construction is over only the remaining price is recovered and the instrument of transfer registered. Once the draw of lottery takes place and when the schedule for payment is indicated, it is not known as to what further process is required for issuing any allotment order. Even though the appellant Board terms this procedure to be only registration of the prospective allottees but in fact and in law we have no hesitation in holding that this procedure is nothing but a procedure for allotment of the house, because once the allottee is determined, he is communicated the instalments to be paid, the period and schedule for instalment is also given. An option to deposit the entire amount in one go and thereafter, if the construction cost and after the construction, the difference in cost is worked out and after recovery of the same, the transfer is effected.
An option to deposit the entire amount in one go and thereafter, if the construction cost and after the construction, the difference in cost is worked out and after recovery of the same, the transfer is effected. That being so, the learned writ Court has not committed any error in holding that in all of these cases allotment has been done and once the allotment has been done, the Board is denuded of its power to seek enhanced cost of land based on Collector guidelines. Cost of the land was determined by the Board based on the various factors and other aspects at the time of allotment/registration itself and thereafter the Board cannot recover any cost of land on the ground that at the time of handing over the possession and registration of instrument, the land price has increased due to coming into force of new Collector guidelines. This action of the Board was clearly unsustainable and therefore, the learned writ Court has not committed any error in holding that once the allotment has been done, no enhancement or recovery is permissible. This is in accordance to the law laid down in various cases and we see no reason to take a different view. 41. Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned counsel, while canvassing his contention in detail had referred to various documents and observations of the Supreme Court in the judgments relied upon to say that the Board is entitled to fix the price of the land in accordance to the Collector guidelines and the value of the land transferred is nothing but the one indicated by the Collector in the guidelines. 42. However, the learned writ Court has gone into all these aspects in detail and has discussed each and every judgment and its implication. That apart, the Circular dated 24.10.2008; the statutory Rules and the Provisions of the Act of 1992 have been meticulously considered by the learned Single Judge for arriving at the conclusions. We have gone through each and every aspect of the matter as has been discussed by the learned Single Judge and we find that the learned Judge has given due consideration to each and every aspect of the matter and it is not necessary for us now to go into various aspects of the matter separately, as we are only affirming the order of the learned writ Court.
The learned Single Judge has gone in detail through the statutory provisions, particularly the Act of 1972; the M.P. Housing Board Accounts Rules, 1991; the provisions of rules 5.0 to 5.11 under section V; and based on these Rules the final conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 28 reads as under : “28. The Board has tried to justify the linking of determination of cost price of land with the Collector’s guidelines. These guidelines, evident it is, are for the purpose of determination of stamp duty and keeps on changing every year. Whether such a volatile flexible and even changing factor can be the foundation for determination of the cost price in respect of self financing scheme. And even if it can be relied whether an application of it can be at the detriment of the purchasers/allottees. When in fact as in the present case where it will be noticed little later that no extra cost has been incurred on the land from the date it is acquired and moreso from the date of allotment of units in favour of respective purchasers.” 43. Thereafter, the learned writ Court has gone into the question of section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899; the judgments with regard to the fixation of the market value based on Collector guidelines and the Rules framed under the Stamp Act; and, the conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge in this regard reads as under (paragraph 32) : “32. ... However, unless established that the determination of market value is by the expert committee constituted under 2000 Guideline Rules, by following the procedures laid down therein, the market value determined by the Collector in the considered opinion of this Court will not be foolproof determinant for pricing of the residential accommodations under the self financing scheme. Even if it is made the basis which the Board has in the instant case. It will be for the Board to establish that with every changing market value of land, they had to incur extra cost for the land with every change from the date of final allotment. And unless established it will be beyond its power to add hypothetically the cost price.” 44. As far as determining the date of allotment is concerned, the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 33 and 34 has considered the issue in the following manner : “ 33.
And unless established it will be beyond its power to add hypothetically the cost price.” 44. As far as determining the date of allotment is concerned, the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 33 and 34 has considered the issue in the following manner : “ 33. The next question is whether it is the date of allotment order or the date when an instrument of transfer is executed should be the date for determining the cost price of land to be included in the final cost price which a buyer has to pay under self financing scheme. Can it be the date when the project is mooted, i.e., when a technical and administrative sanction is granted, or the date when the offer is floated vide advertisement, or when the applications are scrutinized. The answer would be in the negative because, these stages are the floating stage. A stage, however, comes after the scrutiny of application received in pursuance to the tender, when the respective allotees are determined, i.e., the allotment is finalized. However, at this stage there may be or may not be any execution of instrument conveying the title, but still stage is reached when it is finally determined as to the person who is to be allotted the unit. There is thus accrual of some right in favour of such allottee. Which in future culminates into sale/transfer of the property in question with the execution of instrument of sale or transaction, as the case may be. At this stage one comes to know that he is the actual purchaser of the residential house. 34. Whereas, the contention on behalf of petitioners is that the date on which the allotment order is issued should be the date for determining the cost price of land, subject to adding of any extra price incurred in the cost price of land. The respondent Board, however, has to submit that since there is no accrual of right in favour of the prospective buyers, merely on their registration and the right only accrues when an instrument of transfer is executed, it is the date of such instrument which is the determinant date for the cost of land to be included in the final cost price which in turn is based on he Collector’s guidelines.
True it may be that the title in property will normally pass to purchaser from the date of execution of sale-deed. However, as held in Kaliaperumal v. Rajagopal and another [ (2009)4 SCC 193 ], “the true test is the intention of the parties”. It has been held therein “18. Normally, ownership and title to the property will pass to the purchaser on registration of the sale-deed with effect from the date of execution of the sale-deed. But this is not an invariable rule, as the true test of passing of property is the intention of parties. ....” Though the proposition of law is in the context of different set of facts. However, the principle can be taken aid of in respect of the aspect of pricing of a unit/residential house under the self financing scheme. The determinant factor would be when it is tacitly agreed, if not expressly, that, the price of land at the time of registration of/or execution of instrument of conveyance would be included in the input price for pricing the unit/residential house, it will the date on which the right to allot the house is determined. It has been held in Delhi Development Authority v. Pushpendra Kumar Jain [1994 Supp.(3) SCC 494], that “the right to flat arises only on the communication of the letter of allotment, the price or rates prevailing on the date of such communication is applicable unless otherwise provided in the Scheme.” 45. After so holding, the learned Single Judge has gone into the M.P. Housing Board Accounts Rules; self financing scheme; the distinct features of the Scheme; the law laid down in the case of Anil Kumar Khiwani (supra); and, in paragraph 40, the conclusion is drawn in the following manner : “40. The principle culled out from the above verdict is that in case of self financing scheme, the purchaser will have to bear the actual costs of construction which includes the price which the Housing Board has to incur. Thus, the price paid by the Board in construction or in raising the fund becomes the principal factor for pricing of a housing unit which is likely to be different than the price of constructed unit sold at market price.
Thus, the price paid by the Board in construction or in raising the fund becomes the principal factor for pricing of a housing unit which is likely to be different than the price of constructed unit sold at market price. Therefore, it has been observed in Anil Kumar Khiwani (supra), in paragraph 21 “Our observations herein however should not be read to mean that the developer in the present case has an absolute right to increase the cost of flats initially announced as estimated cost. The final cost should be proportionate to the estimated cost mentioned in the offer keeping in mind the rate of inflation, escalation of the prices of inputs, escalation in the prices of the construction material and labour charges.” 46. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge found that the concept and expression ‘market value’ is a changing concept; and, in paragraphs 42 and 43, its implication in the backdrop of self financing scheme has been considered in the following manner : “42. Would that mean that in case of self financing scheme wherein the execution of instrument of conveyance is deferred, cost incurred on the land at the initial stage and in absence of cogent material to establish that the Board subsequently thereafter has incurred any cost on said input (i.e. land), the market price of land as determined by Collector, at the time of execution of the instrument of conveyance can be included in pricing. 43. Since the basic feature of pricing under self financing scheme is meeting out the cost of input, if no further cost is shown to have been incurred in the input such as land, the Board is not justified in adding the market price of the land at the time of execution of instrument of conveyance. In case if the Board is allowed to do so, then it is like permitting the Board to earn profit which would be contrary to the object for which the Board has been brought into existence. Unjust enrichment is contrary to justice, equity and good conscience.” 47.
In case if the Board is allowed to do so, then it is like permitting the Board to earn profit which would be contrary to the object for which the Board has been brought into existence. Unjust enrichment is contrary to justice, equity and good conscience.” 47. After so holding, each and every judgment referred to hereinabove and relied upon by learned counsel for the parties is considered by the learned Single Judge and it is his conclusion that unless established that some extra expenditure was incurred by the Board after the allotment of site and before final pricing, that the action of the Board is nothing but an arbitrary and unjustified action. In arriving at the aforesaid conclusion and in holding that the Board is not entitled to recover the extra amount for the price of land based on Collector guidelines, we find that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error warranting interference. 48. We have reproduced the observations and findings made by the learned Single Judge in the preceding paragraphs only to indicate that the learned Single Judge has exercised his powers in a very reasonable manner, has given cogent reasons for holding so and, therefore, it is not necessary now for us to go into the question separately and answer them in a different manner when we agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge and the justification given by him for doing so. 49. In Writ Appeal No.144/2014 i.e. the fifth case also, once the allotment was finalized and the entire amount was paid by the petitioner as per communication -- Annexure P-4 dated 16.7.2009, and when the petitioner also deposited the enhanced amount demanded vide Annexure P/5 on 7.4.2012, the impugned order seeking payment of additional sum of Rs. 4.6 lacs can be justified only if the additional sum now claimed by the impugned order is the actual cost and expense incurred by the Board for making construction. If it pertains to only fixing the price of the land on Collector Guidelines, it is not permissible. 50.
4.6 lacs can be justified only if the additional sum now claimed by the impugned order is the actual cost and expense incurred by the Board for making construction. If it pertains to only fixing the price of the land on Collector Guidelines, it is not permissible. 50. We may point out that except in the cases pertaining to Hari Singh Gour Nagar, Sagar, there is allotment and deposit of instalments or registration in one go in all the cases and therefore, in all the cases, the allotment order having been issued no increase thereafter is permissible with regard to the cost of the land. 51. As far as the 25 HIG Duplex houses in Hari Singh Gour Nagar, Sagar is concerned, the different process has been followed in their cases and therefore, we are of the considered view that the concept of allotment having been made cannot be applied in these cases. In these cases the question has to be reconsidered based on the factual scenario as is existing therein and therefore, these cases are to be remanded back to the appellant Board for reconsideration as it cannot be said that in these cases also final allotments were made because the communication available do not show so. 52. However, once we hold that the scheme under the self financing scheme does not permit the appellant Board to apply a market oriented concept for recovery of land price and approve the finding of the learned writ Court. We have to further say that the decision of the Board in recovering the market price for the land based on the Collector guidelines is nothing but an arbitrary decision and it has to be quashed. The board is only entitled to recover the price of the land and fix it based on the actual expenses incurred by the Board for purchase of the land, its development etc. and determine it with reference to the date when the allotment is made after finalization of the lottery. This process should be followed even in the case of 25 HIG Duplex houses in Hari Singh Gour Nagar, Sagar and therefore, for determining this factor we remand these matters (Hari Singh Gour Nagar, Sagar) back to the Board itself.
and determine it with reference to the date when the allotment is made after finalization of the lottery. This process should be followed even in the case of 25 HIG Duplex houses in Hari Singh Gour Nagar, Sagar and therefore, for determining this factor we remand these matters (Hari Singh Gour Nagar, Sagar) back to the Board itself. The cases pertaining to HIG Duplex houses in Hari Singh Gour Nagar, Sagar are remanded back to the appellant Board with the following directions : The appellant Board shall determine the cost of the land and cost of houses in all these cases based on actual expenses incurred by the Board for construction and for development of land, payment of compensation etc. on land acquisition and thereafter shall recover the value of the land by determining the cost of the land in accordance to law. 53. In view of the aforesaid findings and reasons given by us the order passed by the learned writ Court challenged in these appeals is upheld and all the appeals except the following appeals pertaining to 25 HIG Duplex Houses in Harisingh Gour Nagar, Sagar , are dismissed without any order so as to costs. 54. As far as the following Writ Appeals No.206/2014, Writ Appeal 203/2014 and Writ Appeal No.205/2014 are concerned they are remanded back to the competent authority of the Board for proceeding in accordance to the directions already given by us as indicated herein above. 55. As far as Writ Appeal No.144/2014 is concerned, it is directed that the order dated 4.5.2013 -- Annexure P-1 is quashed; and, the respondent Board shall only recover from the petitioner therein the actual escalated cost of construction, if any, after notice to the petitioner. They are restrained from collecting any amount towards cost of the land assessed on the basis of Collector guidelines. If the entire amount of Rs.4.6 lacs is the cost of the land assessed on the basis of the Collector guidelines, the Board is restrained from collecting the same, else they are granted liberty to recover only such amount which is the actual cost of construction i.e. the escalated cost, and if the petitioner pays the same, the house be allotted to the petitioner. 56.
56. The entire process as directed herein above be concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and in such cases where construction of the houses are complete and allottees have made the entire payment, the process for handing over possession and concluding of the requirements for handing over possession be undertaken and completed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 57. With the aforesaid, all these appeals stands disposed of. ...........