JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - Aggrieved by the demand raised by respondent No.1 for additional amount of Rs.4,78,971/- along with interest @ 14% per annum, th petitioner has filed the instant petition for grant of following substantive reliefs: a. Quash the notices Annexures P-1 and P-2 demanding additional sum of Rs.4,78,971/- along with interest at the rate of 14 per cent. b. Prohibit the respondents from taking any punitive action in pursuance to the notices Annexures P-1 and P-2 and holding the respondents bound by the terms of sale deed and letter of allotment. c. Direct the respondent in the alternative to refund the amount of Rs.8,43,588/- along with full cost incurred by the petitioner for the execution and registration of the sale deed amounting to Rs.59,432/- and other expenses along with interest on the said amount at the rate of 14 per cent per annum which is being claimed by the respondents and also Rs.3.00 lacs by way of compensation for the harassment and mental tension etc. suffered by the petitioner because of the notices Annexures P-1 and P-2. 2. The facts are not in dispute and may be stated thus. 3. Respondent No.1 acquired the land measuring 44-18- 17 bighas, situated in Village Devta Ground, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P., for construction of a housing colony at Bajura. The claimants/landlords were dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector and filed land reference petitions before the learned District Judge, Kullu, which were later on assigned to the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kullu, who vide award dated 28.11.2006 allowed the reference petitions and assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 3,60,000/- per bigha. In addition to this, the claimants were also held entitled to solatium @ 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation and additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act @ 12% per annum on the awarded enhanced amount from the date of the award of the Land Acquisition Collector or from the date of taking over possession of the land, whichever was earlier. In addition thereto, interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of taking over possession of the acquired property for one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of payment was also awarded. In addition thereto, interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of taking over possession of the acquired property for one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of payment was also awarded. The award was thereafter assailed before this Court by filing appeals, three in number, and this Court vide order dated 22.3.2007 directed respondent No.1 to deposit the amount along with interest. This order was complied with by respondent No.1 by depositing a sum of Rs. 2,73,20,314/- on 30.3.2007. 4. The petitioner on 2.7.2010 applied for one of the plots in the housing colony proposed by respondent No.1 over the acquired land. The same was duly considered by respondent No.1 and vide letter dated 24.7.2010, the petitioner was informed that he had been allotted category-I, Plot No.1, under Partial SelfFinancing Scheme at a cost of Rs.8,43,588/-. The petitioner after arranging the funds through withdrawal of his GPF etc., deposited the aforesaid amount. Thereafter, the petitioner also spent a sum of Rs.42,200/- on account of stamp charges and Rs.17,232/- as registration charges. The sale deed was duly executed and registered in his favour on 16.3.2011. 5. However, thereafter, vide letter dated 7.6.2013, respondent No.1 demanded an additional amount of Rs. 4,78,971/- by simply making reference of the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kullu. The petitioner objected to the additional demand raised by respondent No.1 vide letter dated 25.6.2013 on the ground that since there was a complete conveyance deed executed in his favour, therefore, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the allotment made, vide letter of allotment, price of the unit could not be increased. However, representation made by the petitioner was rejected and vide letter dated 25.2.2015, the petitioner was once again requested to deposit the additional amount, constraining him to file the instant petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 7. What appears from the record is that while calculating the cost of the plot, the respondents in fact did not take into consideration the enhancement in the award amount made by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kullu and having later on realized the mistake, they raised the additional demand from the petitioner. 8. 7. What appears from the record is that while calculating the cost of the plot, the respondents in fact did not take into consideration the enhancement in the award amount made by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kullu and having later on realized the mistake, they raised the additional demand from the petitioner. 8. Therefore, moot question in this case is whether the petitioner can be permitted to take shelter of the following condition as contained in the letter of allotment and conveyance deed: The price of the unit shall not be enhanced to the disadvantage of the allottee after the execution of the conveyance deed except where the award of the land on which plot has been developed has been enhanced by the competent Court of Law at any subsequent stage and also recovery of any amount awarded by any arbitrator or any Court of law arising out of any dispute between the Housing and UDA and contractor/allottee etc. In case increase in these circumstances, the allottee will have to pay additional cost worked out by the CEO-cum-Secretary which will be final and binding on the allottee. and further rely upon the Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority (Allotment, Sale of Houses, Flats and Plots) Regulations, 2004, which provides as under: Provided that the price of any house or plot shall not be charged to the disadvantage of an allottee after the execution of the agreement except in the case of: a) a recovery of enhanced cost of land awarded by any competent Court of law at any subsequent stage; and b) A recovery of any amount awarded by any Arbitrator or any court of Law arising out of any dispute between the Authority and contractors or allottees etc. Provided that the amount to be recovered under clauses (a) and (b) above from the allottees, shall be determined by the Chief Executive Officer and same shall be binding on the allottee. 9. The answer to the aforesaid proposition is definitely in negative as the petitioner himself has not been able to dispute the factual position to the effect that the compensation amount as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector had in fact been enhanced by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kullu, but the said amount had not been taken into consideration by the Board while calculating the cost of plot etc. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, there was no question of any estoppel being applicable to the case in hand. 10. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Shimla Development Authority vs. Asha Rani , (1996) 8 SCC 487 , while dealing with somewhat similar issue, held that when scheme for construction and allotment of the house to the allottees is initiated, the allottee is bound to bear the cost of the value determined by the civil court under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act by award and decree or thereafter if an appeal is filed and further increase is made under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. 11. In Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank , (2007) 6 SCC 711 , the Hon''ble Supreme court, while considering a similar issue, laid down large number of principles including the following : - "Where the plot/flat/house has been allotted at a tentative or provisional price, subject to final determination of price on completion of the project (that is acquisition proceedings and development activities), the development authority will be entitled to revise or increase the price. But where the allotment is at a fixed price, and a higher price or extra payments are illegally or unjustifiably demanded and collected, the allottee will be entitled to refund of such excess with such interest, as may be determined with reference to the facts of the case." 12. In Tamil Nadu Housing Board & Ors. Vs. Sea Shore Apartments Owners Welfare Association , (2008) 3 SCC 21 , while deciding the similar issue, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under :- "So far as price is concerned, in 1991, when the names of applicants were registered, it was clarified that the price indicated was ''tentative price'' and it was subject to ''final price'' being fixed by the Board. In any case when the scheme was altered from seven types to fifteen types 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 any case when the scheme was altered from seven types to fifteen types 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 above condition and they were compelled to make payment and thus were treated unfairly or unreasonably by the Board." 13. No doubt, the acts of the officials of the government or for that matter, even the Board are binding on it, provided the same are authorized and within the scope of authority of such official(s). The Board nonetheless cannot be bogged down for the negligence or wanton acts of its employees in not calculating the amount of plot in accordance with the award that admittedly had already been announced much earlier to the advertisement in question. 14. Indubitably,The Board is the State within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution of India and being an extended wing of the Government cannot be put to loss by resorting to taking shelter or refuge to technicalities. The petitioner is bound to pay market price of the land, which as per fresh calculations submitted by respondent No.1 to this Court on 13.12.2018 works out to Rs.3,07,441/- instead of Rs.4,78,971/-. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted time upto 30.6.2019 to deposit this amount with respondent No.1, failing which consequences, as per law, shall follow. 15. The writ petition is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.