SHIMLA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. ASHA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) We have heard the counsel on both sides.

(3.) These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla made on June 6, 1995 in w. P. No. 88/95. the admitted facts are that the respondent had applied under Self-Finance Scheme in 1986 for allotment of the flats. The respondent had deposited a sum of Rs. 13,800/- for A types house. On November 13,1986, the respondent was informed that she had to pay a tentative cost of Rs. 1,44,000/- which included earnest money of Rs. 13,800/- already deposited. In other words, she was required to deposite Rs. 1,30,200/- in instalments stated in the letter. Thereafter she was informed by letter dated November 1991 that cost of construction had been increased, on account of the hike in prices of the material, to Rs. 2, 73,332/- as against Rs 1,44,000/ and she was directed to pay the balance amount in the manner indicated in the letter. On reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the District Judge by his award and decree dated April 30, 1993 enhanced the compensation payable to the land acquired for the construction of flats under the self Finance Scheme. Consequently, by the letter dated April 12, 1993 respondent was called upon to pay the escalated charges. Respondent, as stated earlier, approached the High Court challenging the demand. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant Authority not to recover the amount from the respondent. In view of the letter written by the appellant on two occasions earlier, the only question is:Whether the High Court is right is its direction not to recover the amount from the respondent The admitted position, as stated earlier, is that the land of a private owner was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the Self Finance Scheme. As a matter of fact, when scheme is for construction and allotment of the houses to the allottees is initiated, 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 an appeal is filed and furrther increase is made under Section 24 of the Act. In this case, admittedly, on reference under Section 18, the Court had determined the compensation by award and decree made under section 26 on April 30, 1993. Therefore, the earlier demand was required to be modified, consistent with the escalation in the cost of the value of the land as a result of determination of the compensation by the civil Court.