NISHA SINGHAL Vs. M P HOUSING BOARD BHOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This letters patent appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 20-8-1994, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant being M. P . No.445 of 1993, has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts, not in dispute, are that MIG House No.185 in Pandit Dindayal Nagar Colony of Gwalior was allotted to the appellant under the Housing Hire-Purchase Scheme of the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board. The agreed price payable by instalments was Rs. 1,58,000/- which the appellant is prepared to pay and states that, in fact, has been paid by now. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned demand (Annexure-P/9) whereby some excess money, not initially agreed, is being demanded, resulting in enhancement of the cost of the house to Rs. 1,93,653/-. The contention of the appellant before the learned single Judge in the writ petition was that the additional price claimed under several heads is contrary to the terms of the agreement reached between the parties and is also otherwise totally arbitrary and without any justification. The appellant had claimed a writ for being delivered possession of the house on payment of the initially agreed price.

(3.) The learned single Judge dismissed the petition firstly on the ground that under the terms of the said sale agreement under the Housing Scheme, the prices notified and agreed were liable to enhancement and the enhancement was within the powers of the Board. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajay Pal Singh, AIR 1989 SC 1076. The learned single Judge also dismissed the petition on the second ground that the rights between the Board and the appellant are regulated by a contract and the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 cannot be brought in aid by the appellant.