VRINDA GUJARATI Vs. BAREILLY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are being disposed of by an order as we would like to lay down the principle regarding the escalation of price with respect to the houses constructed by the Bareilly Development Authority and the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad.

(2.) It is to be mentioned that social schemes for providing houses to various type of groups i.e. High Income Group (HIG); Middle Income Group (MIG) and Lower Income Group (LIG) have been evolved. The houses are constructed by the State functionaries after acquiring the land. Since the citizens are not able to construct the houses on account of so many factors, the State wants through its instrumentalities to construct developed planned colonies of houses at reasonable rate and also to fulfil the obligation to provide shelter under the Constitution of India.

(3.) The question which has been cropped up for consideration is that much time is elapsed between the registration of the applications for allotment of houses and the actual construction and delivery of possession thereafter. It is often seen that tentative period mentioned is three or five years but in actual practice, it takes long period ranging from five to ten years or so. The question which arises that who should be responsible for the escalation of prices which occurred on account of inordinate delay. The tentative period mentioned is three or five years. The citizen, in the ordinary course of thing cannot be made to suffer for the negligence of the performance of duties in the construction of the houses. Reasonable period of delay in some circumstances, if the authorities justified, can be accepted as a valid explanation for the delay caused. It is within the special knowledge of the authorities who are instrumentalities of the State to explain otherwise instrumentalities of the State as well as other functionaries would be liable for acts of misfeasance in the execution of the project. The negligence concept recently has been expanded by the Supreme Count in Lucknow Development Authority v. M. K. Gupta, See (1994) 1 SCC 243 : (AIR 1994 SC 787), to such extent that the authorities had been made liable for the misfeasance of the duties and they are liable to pay compensation. The concept has been further expanded that the State and its instrumentality would be liable for the illegal acts done by its functionaries. If the authorities failed to justify the circumstances or causes which lay to delay they would not be discharging the onus of proof under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is expected that the instrumentality of the State should have performed the duties within reasonable time, and reasonableness principle has been expanded to the performance of contractual statutory duties.