UMA ADDHYA Vs. BIREN MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the context of the facts of the present case, one of the questions that needs adjudication is as to whether there is no dispute on facts and on such undisputed facts there may bean argument leading to an irresistible conclusion one way or the other, should the parties even in the matter of contract, be relegated to vindicate their stand by a civil suit. Before we might comment upon and determine the question framed above, it would be useful to extract a resume of facts leading to the filing of this writ appeal by the appellant, who was the petitioner in the original lis, and by the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge has indeed been asked to substantiate her stand before a civil court.

(2.) Grace Joseph, the appellant herein, it appears, could scarcely collect funds enough collect funds enough to buy a small dwelling house only when she retired as the Headmistress of Kendriya Vidyalaya in the year 1991. She made an application for allotment of a plot of land with building on it offered by the Kerala State Housing Board, arrayed as second respondent in the writ petition under the Gandhi Nagger Hosing Scheme. The plot was selected on the basis of the repaying capacity of the petitioner. She was allotted plot NO. A5-94 with A-5 type of building and an agreement for sale was entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent on 8.4.1992 detailing various stipulations. A copy of the agreement has been placed on record as Ext.P2. The cost details of the property purchased by her from the 2nd respondent, as per agreement, Ext.P2 are as follows. <p>Cost of Building Rs.86,992/- Cost of land Rs.31,260/- Total Rs.1,18,252/- Extent of land Rs.132.405 M2 Cost per M2 Rs.239.09 (Approx. 9443.75 per cent)"

(3.) Pursuant to the notice, respondents 1 to 3 entered appearance and contested the cause of the petitioner by filing a joint written statement wherein it has been inter alia pleaded that demand of Rs. 13,406/- was fir the balance amount of building cost with interest and Rs.1,63,821/- being the amount apportioned to the petitioner based on LAR payment along with 15% interest as on 13.11.2003. The demand was being made on the basis of the provisions of Ext.P2 agreement. Admitting that the petitioner who was a retired headmistress had paid the tentative price of the land i.e, Rs.31,260/- and the tentative price of the building was fixed at Rs.86,992/-, it is further pleaded that the Board is entitled to refix the final price considering the payment of enhanced amount as per the LAR cases as well as the cost incurred by the Board of conducting the LAR cases and the petitioner would get conveyance of the property only on payment of all amounts due to the Board. Admitting that the State had referred appeals against the LAR cases, wherein challenge was to enhancement awarded by the preference court as well as to delete interest on solatium and the additional amount granted under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. It is further mentioned that, the Board has finalized the land value at Rs. 11,01,767/- and that the decree certificate in all LAR cases are not yet received and therefore, additional amount to be remitted for satisfaction of the decree holders are no definite. It is them mentioned that the Board had not acted in a mala fide or arbitrary manner and that in the meeting of the Board held on 11.4.2003 it was decided that in view of LAR enhanced compensation, the price was fixed at Rs.1,010.87 per square meter as on 28.2.2003. The basic pleadings made in the petition with regard to the crucial dates on which the land acquisition officer had given the award or the date when the enhancement was made in the LAR cases filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation and further that the appeal was filed by the State and not by the landowners have not been controverted. The case has been exclusively defended relying upon the various clauses of the agreement, Ext. P2.