CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH Vs. K. K. KALSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents are allotees of flats under a Self-financing Scheme floated by the appellant Board. There was some dispute between the parties and it led the respondents into filing a writ petition in the High Court for vindicating their grievances against the appellant Board. The High Court found that the writ petitions were not maintainable. In spite of forming that opinion, the High Court, instead of driving back the respondents to the circuitous route of filing civil suits and inviting adjudication of questions on facts, showed indulgence by persuading the parties to arrive at a settlement so as to give a quietus to the litigation. There were two categories of allottees referred to as "Category I" and "Category II". The appellant Board made an offer for settlement in the following terms: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_508_TLPRE0_2003.htm</FRM>

(2.) The Court found the proposal to be very reasonable and accepted the same and allowed the respondents an opportunity of accepting the revised offer of the appellant Board which offer, the High Court directed the appellant Board to issue to each of the allottees, consistently with the offer made before the Court and incorporated in the judgment.

(3.) In spite of the dispute having been so settled, the controversy did not terminate. It appears that the hearing before the High Court had taken place sometime in the beginning of the month of January 1996 when the appellant Board submitted the proposal for settlement and made calculations by taking into account the interest which would become due and payable by 31-1-1996. The Judgement appears to have been reserved and came to be delivered on 15- 3-1996, that is, much after 31-1-1996, the date up to which the calculations were made as stated hereinabove. The other controversy which arose is that the respondents had approached the appellant Board for issuance of revised offers which according to the respondents were not issued by the appellant Board. The reason for not issuing revised letters of allotment, was, according to the appellant Board that it had moved an application before the High Court seeking clarification / direction for payment of further interest up to the date of payment in view of the Judgement having been delayed.