SUGUNA D SHENOY Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY a notification dated 30 -1 -1989, the Bangalore Development Authority issued an advertisement inviting applications for allotment of lands falling under Low Income Group under the Self -financing Scheme Rules, 1982. The costs of the flats situated in the ground floor was shown to be Rs. 1,35,000/ -, in the first floor Rs. 1,32,000/ -, and in the second floor Rs. 1,30,000/ -. Appellants who belong to the Low Income Group submitted applications for allotment of flats and made necessary payments in terms of the conditions of the notification. All of them were intimated in the year 1990 to pay the balance amount within the time specified in Annexure -C. By individual endorsements issued on 5 -9 -1992 all the appellants were informed that the possession of the flats would be given within 7 days as is evident from Annexure -D, According to the appellants the condition of the flats was deplorable at the time of delivery of possession and they had to incur huge expenditure to make the flats habitable. The appellants were intimated to pay additional sums varying from Rs. 41,000/ - to 43,000/ - as escalated price vide Annexure -F. Aggrieved by the aforesaid endorsement Annexure -F various writ petitions were filed challenging the action of the respondent - authority with prayer for restraining it from demanding the escalation price and from taking any steps to recover the same from them. The writ petitions were dismissed vide the order impugned in this appeal holding that the authority was justified in escalating the price as per condition No. 17 of the notification whereby the value fixed at the time of the earlier notification was only tentative and subject to escalation. The plea that the escalation of the price was arbitrary and unguided was rejected.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the escalation of the price under the circumstances was not justified and the action of the respondent was arbitrary. It is submitted that the details furnished by the respondent -authority were contradictory having no rationale. After the delivery of the possession the authority had no jurisdiction to demand additional price and that rule of promissory estoppel could not be pressed into service against the appellants. The action of the Authority is stated to be against the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Buildings under Self -financing Scheme) Rules, 1982.

(3.) DEALING with the similar questions and considering the scope of interference by the High Court in the matter of escalation of prices another Division Bench of this Court in (W.A. No. 553 of 1996, DD: 10 -1 -1997), referred to various judgments of the Apex Court such: as Bareilly Development Authority and Another v Ajay Pal Singh and Others, Premji Bhai Parmar and Others v Delhi Development Authorityand Others, Unni Krishnan, J.P. and Others v State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, Kerala State Electricity Board v S.N. Govinda Prabhu, Indore Development Authority v Smt. Sadhana Agarwal and Others, and held that the Development Authority had right to enhance the sital value subject to the conditions that such an escalation was not apparently unreasonable, wholly irrational, unfair, arbitrary or erratic. This Court further held: 'It is however settled principle of law that while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not sit as the Court of appeal and cannot substitute its opinion for opinion of the concerned authorities. Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited to the extent of only determining the fairness and reasonableness of the action taken by the authority. The High Court is not expected to examine the disputed facts and would not normally go into the complicated process of computation of the sital value. The Court would decline to interfere by the use of magnifying glasses to look or ascertain the action of the respondent in determining the prices. If the process of fixation of the prices is not unfair, unreasonable or arbitrary, the Court would not interfere. But where the position is otherwise, appropriate directions shall be issued'.