DWARIKA PRASAD PANDEY Vs. ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner applied for allotment of a residential flat M.I.G. at Neem Sarai Housing Scheme of Allahabad Development Authority and deposited sum of Rupees 36,000/- by way of registration fee on 5-6-1996 On 3-10-1996 the Zonal Officer of the respondents sent a proposal to the petitioner that he has been allotted M.I.G. Flat No. 46 at Neem Sarai Housing Scheme of Allahabad Development Authority on the terms and conditions stipulated in the allotment letter dated 3-10-1996 According to the said allotment letter the total estimated costs of the flat was Rs. 2,38,800.00 for the person paying lump sum in cash. Accordingly, after deduction of the registration amount the respondents issued a letter dated 3-10-1996 to the petitioner for paying balance amount of Rs. 2,02,800.00 to be paid on or before 31-10-1996 It was stipulated that if the amount is not paid within 31st. Oct. 1996 the penalty interest at the rate of 18% shall be payable along with the payable amount. If it is not paid within three months the allotment shall stand cancelled. The said allotment letter has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner who is a retired Headmaster of a Primary School was in great need of residential flat and due to old age and ill health he wants to live in the city. The petitioner after withdrawing all the accumulated money and taking loan amount managed to deposit the said sum of Rs. 2,02,800.00 on 18th Oct. 1996 much within the stipulated period. In terms of clause 13 of the said allotment order dated 3-10-1996 the possession of the flat was to be given in a month on deposit of the total amount. In the present case whatever money demanded was paid by the petitioner within the stipulated period and in accordance with clause 13 of the terms, the petitioner should have been given possession of the flat within one month i.e. by 18th Nov. 1996 Strangely enough after appropriating the said sum of Rs. 2,02,800.00 plus Rs. 36,000.00 on account of the costs of the said flat, the respondents did not handover the possession to the petitioner and kept completely silent for about three months.The representations made by the petitioner to the respondents for handing over possession of the said flat remained unanswered. In that view of the matter, the petitioner was forced to file this writ petition before this Court.

(2.) For the first time in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, the respondents have taken the stand that the authorities have reviewed the costs of the construction and development charges of the flat and fixed the revised costs of the M.I.G. Flat at Rs. 4,62,500.00. Accordingly, the petitioner was asked to deposit a further sum of Rs. Rs. 2,23,700.00 by 31-1-1997 through a letter dated 4-1-1997 It is alleged that the petitioner did not deposit the said amount as such the petitioner could not get the possession of the allotted house. It was further alleged that the representation of the petitioner was decided by the Vice-Chairman of the Allahabad Development Authority in pursuance of the decision of this Court regarding revision of the costs of the flat at Neem Sarai Housing Scheme.

(3.) We have carefully considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents who relied strongly on their affidavits. The petitioner strongly relied on the allotment letter that shows the costs of the flat only at Rs. 2,38,800.00 which he paid within time, therefore, the possession of the flat should have been given to the petitioner. From a perusal of the allotment order the submissions of the petitioner is totally justified. The petitioner has paid the money i.e. the estimated costs of the flat within the stipulated time and was entitled to the possession of the flat within a month of deposit of the said amount. The estimated costs was the total costs of the flat as shown in the allotment letter. There was only one instalment mentioned in the said letter which is Rs. 2,02,800.00 and no other instalment was mentioned therein, as such the total amount demanded was paid and the petitioner has acquired right of possession of the flat. As on the date of allotment and the date of total payment there was no other price of the flat available. The only price available as on that date was Rs. 2,38,800.00 and that amount having been paid the petitioner was entitled to the possession and occupation of the said flat. The price could not have varied within a period of three months to the extent of proposed extra amount charged Rs. 2,37,700.00. In a Housing Promotion Scheme escalation is always estimated in advance and under no circumstances the price could be varied so that double the amount of estimated costs is demanded from the purchaser of the housing scheme flats. At least if due to the inefficiency, laches and negligence of the respondents the costs of construction and development charges are refixed revising the costs to be double the amount of the estimated costs it only shows that either the estimated cost was incorrect or that the escalation in the cost was due to mismanagement or misappropriation or laches and negligence of the supervisory staff. An escalation of the price of the flat could be refixed or redetermined but the same could not be double of the estimated costs. The final costing must have a rationale to the estimated costs and could not be excessive, arbitrary, exhorbitant and beyond limits. The price could not be fixed as double the amount of estimated costs. In the instant case the contract by issuing the allotment letter was made in the month of October, 1996 and by 14th of November, 1996 the petitioner was entitled to get the possession of the flat and instead of handing over the possession the matter was prolonged for three months and then a letter showing the escalation costs which was practically double the actual estimated costs was purported to have beeen issued to the petitioner. It is very strange that the respondents, though have filed an affidavit have not disclosed to this Court about the review made by the Board and the factors taken into consideration resulting in escalation and actual costs of the construction nor any date of review the aforesaid review was disclosed in the said affidavit. In any event, the respondents should have given possession of the flat to the petitioner within a month on making his deposit, as such the said action on the part of the respondents are totally illegal and wrongful. The allotment letter relating to the escalation of the price reads as follows :-