Air Marshal Shivdev Singh (Retd.) vs Haryana Urban Development Authority

H.S. Bedi, J.

By this judgment, Civil Writ Petition Nos. 16096, 5236,14621,16449, 16511, 16451, 14623, 14614, 15318, 15361 and 14622 of 1990, 5965, 2879 and 1631 of 1991 are being disposed of. The facts of the case have been culled out from C.W.P. No. 16096 of 1990, as the said case is complete in all respects.

Vide allotment letter dated 7th November, 1985, appended as Annexure P1 to the petition, the petitioner was allotted a residential plot No. 328P, Sector 11, Gurgaon. The price fixed vide letter Annexure P1 was Rs. 1,86,945/ and it was specifically mentioned in para Nos. 2 and 9 thereof that the price was tentative. In para No. 9 thereof it was clarified that in case of any enhancement in the cost of land as a result of an award by a competent authority, the increased price would be payable by the allottees. It appears that subsequently some enhancement was made in the compensation payable for the acquired land and vide Annexure P2 the respondent authorities issued a notice to the petitioner to pay the enhanced price at the rate of Rs. 148.20 per sq. yard. Vide Annexure P3, respondent No. 2 also intimated to the petitioner as to the manner in which the increased cost of plot had been determined. A reading of this Annexure would clearly indicate that the increased price has been determined mathematically and with precision. The present petition has been filed challenging the communications Annexures P2 and P3 on the ground that the demand for the increased price was arbitrary and, as such, not sustainable.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that this writ petition must fail.

Vide clause 9 of Annexure P1, which is theallotment letter in favour of the petitioner, it was clearly agreed between the parties that the price mentioned in the allotment letter was only tentative and subject to increase in case of enhancement by the Court in the compensation to be awarded to the original owners on account of the land having been acquired. The petitioner was intimated the explicit calculation made by the respondents to arrive at the enhanced price of the plot vide Annexure P 3. The onus was on the petitioner to show that the calculations made in Annexure P 3 were not correct. No replication has been filed to the reply made by the respondents in which it has been stated that the price has been increased after considering all legal aspects. We are further of the view that the letter of allotment Annexure P1 had created a binding contract between the parties, and the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution; would not interfere. We have so held in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2282 of 1989 (Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh v. Baldev Singh Dhanju) decided on 23rd April, 1991. For arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, we relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajay Pal Singh, AIR 1989 S.C. 1976, in which it was held where the contract entered into between the State and the persons aggrieved is nonstatutory and purely contractual and the rights are governed only by the terms of the contract, no writ or order can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to compel the authorities to remedy a breach of contract pure and simple". We have also held, relying on the aforesaid judgment, that the jurisdiction of the High Court while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, in cases of non statutory contracts, was limited and a finding that the action of the authorities was arbitrary and unreasonable, could not be recorded under this jurisdiction. It is also to be kept in view that letter of allotment was accepted by the petitioner with all its conditions and the petitioner has not been able to show that the calculations made while determining the increased price of the plot, were wrong.

An additional point has been raised in some of the petitions that as the plots were sold to the petitioner(s) on a ''no profit no loss basis'' it was just and fair that the burden of the enhanced compensation should be taken care off by the sale of commercial property and if the increase in the compensation could be adjusted against the aforesaid sales then no further enhancement should be claimed from the owners of the residential plots such as petitioner(s). This argument was raised before us in C.W.P. No. 1270 of 1985 (Charanjit Bajaj v. State of Haryana) and was repelled by our judgment dated 10th April, 1991.

In view of the above, there is no merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed, but with no order as to costs.