JUDGMENT : 1. The prayer for dispensing with the formal defects is allowed. 2. In these three Special Appeals, the Rajasthan Housing Board, through its Chairman and the Deputy Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board, Circle II, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, have challenged the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 2.5.2014, by which he has set aside the demand note dated 30.8.2013, on the ground that the cost of land by the Housing Board of the houses under the Self Finance Multi Storey Residential Scheme – 2006 in Sectors 1 & 5, Mansarovar, Jaipur, include Self Finance Multi Storey Group Residential Scheme (High Income Group) – 2009, could be charged for the cost, on which the land was acquired and other incidental charges, on the date of allotment, for which the installments were fixed in the years 2007 & 2009. 3. Learned Single Judge held that as per Principles of Costing, 2010, introduced by the Board, the land cost could be determined on the date of payment of first instalment. Para No.21.2 of the Principles of Costing, 2010 provides for the method of fixation of the land cost, on the date of payment of first instalment. The Housing Board did not incur any further expenses in the cost of land, either in the cost of compensation to be paid to the persons, from whom the land was acquired, or on any other incidental cost, or charges on its development. The land rate prevalent at the relevant time, was Rs.2903/- per sq.mtr. in the matter of Smt.Sakuntla Parakh and Rs.3805/- per sq. mtr. in the matter of Smt.Simmi Arun Mehta. The respondents could not justify, as to why they could charge the rate of the land at the time of final allotment, instead of charing it at the rate, which was prevalent at the time of payment of first instalment. 4. So far as parking charges are concerned, learned Single Judge held that the parking on the ground floor under the stilts, was provided in clause (15) of the Scheme. For the High Income Group, 19 flats in the Scheme, were to be built with basement, stilt and 9 floors, on an estimated cost of Rs.34 lacs per flat. 4. So far as parking charges are concerned, learned Single Judge held that the parking on the ground floor under the stilts, was provided in clause (15) of the Scheme. For the High Income Group, 19 flats in the Scheme, were to be built with basement, stilt and 9 floors, on an estimated cost of Rs.34 lacs per flat. In the special details, it was mentioned that flat will include 3 bedrooms with toilet & balcony, dining -cum- drawing room with balcony, kitchen, store and covered car parking, with a plinth area of 150.60 sq.mtrs. The car parking was thus, part of the Scheme, for which the estimated amount was charged. In the demand note issued on 30.8.2013, after disclosing the details of cost of houses, under the details of other expenses in item B (5), parking charges 5% of the total cost, quantified at Rs.1,85,290/-, is included. 5. Learned Single Judge found that when the parking charges were included in the cost of the flat on the ground floor under the stilts, charges for parking at flat rate of 5% all over again without any further facility, was wholly illegal and arbitrary. No separate parking was provided, nor there was any additional cost incurred by the Housing Board for providing the parking on the ground floor under the stilts. 6. Learned Single Judge further found that after the petitioners have paid a sum of Rs.3 lacs, for registration, after depositing the entire cost, the demand of any other amount was not justified at all, nor any material was placed by the respondent-Housing Board, which is appellant before us, to show that any additional cost was incurred, after the costing was worked out, at the time of payment of first instalment. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Housing Board submits that at the time of final payment, the Board is entitled to appropriate all the additional charges, whether on the cost of land, or otherwise, as it is providing the houses on the principle of “No Profit No Loss”. He submits that final costing has been worked out after considering the cost of land, cost of extra land, cost of construction and ancillary service charges. He submits that these are allotment charges, on which the Housing Board has spent an amount, which is required to be paid by the respondents. 8. He submits that final costing has been worked out after considering the cost of land, cost of extra land, cost of construction and ancillary service charges. He submits that these are allotment charges, on which the Housing Board has spent an amount, which is required to be paid by the respondents. 8. We have gone through the record and do not find any error in the findings recorded by learned Single Judge, that under the Disposal of Property Regulations, 1970 and the Principles of Costing, 2010 Para 21.2, the Board is not entitled to charge any extra amount towards the costing of the amount, unless and until, the Board has spent such extra amount, after the fixation of instalment and payment of first instalment. The cost of the flat included the parking in the ground floor under the stilts, and in view of that, no further parking charges were required to be paid, at the time of payment of the last instalment. 9. We do not find that the Housing Board has placed any material before us, which may show that the Board has incurred any extra cost on the procurement or development of the land, and for providing any facility for parking place, other than the parking on the ground floor under the stilts, which was included in the cost of the flat. 10. We do not find any error, on facts or in law, in the reasonings adopted by learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition. 11. If the registration of the title deeds of the property has not been made, requisite steps be taken within a period of three months, after completing all the formalities. 12. The Special Appeals are accordingly dismissed. A copy of this judgment be placed in all the connected file.