J K BARTHAKUR Vs. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY GHAZIABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. Katju, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) BY means of this petition the petitioners have prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents Ghaziabad Development Authority not to deviate from the terms and conditions contained in the Booklet issued to the petitioner at the time of registration under the 1995 Scheme of Central Government Employees, by demanding higher installments, lump sum lease rent and by charging interest from the petitioner regarding the houses allotted to them under the said Scheme at Lajpat Nagar, Ghaziabad.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed and we have perused the same. It is stated in paragraph 5 of the same that on account of rising prices of building materials, labour charges and comparatively higher standards of development in the National Capital Region Area and the net cost of the internal infrastructural development and services including roads, drainage, sewerage etc. and on external trunk services etc. and the increase in the rate of the development cost of the land, the cost of the houses in the Scheme has gone up during the period 1985 to 1988. In paragraph 6 of the same it is stated that it was well known to the petitioners that the cost announced was approximate and tentative and subject to revision on completion of the constructions. In paragraph 7 of the same it is stated that the Scheme in question is financed by the HUDCO and interest is being paid by the answering respondent. Hence it is not possible to forego the interest. In paragraph 8 of the same it is stated that the petitioners before they had applied for registration in the Scheme, had agreed to the absolute right and power for all such changes in the cost. In paragraph 10 of the same it is stated that the authority has to pay interest to the HUDCO. The same is being realized from the allottees in the Scheme and if the petitioners are not willing to get the house at the enhanced cost and are not willing to pay interest thereon, they are at liberty to withdraw their amount and surrender the house. The respondent Authority is prepared to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner with interest thereon if they are not inclined to purchase the houses. In paragraph 19 of the same it is stated that subsequent to the announcement of the proposed Scheme the Government issued an order vide Annexure-CA-1 in which it was directed that an amount equal to 10% of the premium of the land shall be payable in advance on account of Lease Rent for 90 years and accordingly the Lease Rent was demanded from the petitioners. In paragraph 20 of the same it is stated that there can be no final and conclusive cost before completion of constructions. Only approximate cost was announced. Since the HUDCO did not grant interest free loan, interest became chargeable from its allottees and they are liable to pay the same.