SUBHASH CHANDER ARORA Vs. HOUSING BOARD, HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment of mine will dispose of C.W.P. No. 624 of 1984 as well as C.W.P. No. 238 of 1984, 7686 of 1987 and 6956 of 1988. The facts as given in C.W.P. No. 624 are being referred to.

(2.) In the month of November 1972, the Haryana Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as Board) invited application for allotment of built up house a different places in Haryana State on easy instalments for different categories of houses including Middle Income Group (MIG), Low Income Group (LIG) and Economically Weaker Section (EWS) lie petitioners applied for allotment of Low Income Group, Middle Income Group and Economically Weaker Section types of houses. It may be observed here that the price of the houses and mode of payment was also intimated in the advertisement. The petitioners were allotted houses of various categories and they executed agreements with the Board and the possession of the built up houses were also given to the petitioners in the year 1974. On 7.2.1979, the petitioners received a letter from the Estate Manager of the Board that the Board has finalised the cost of houses constructed in the Housing Board Colony in Sector 22, Faridabad and final cost was not to be more than the tentative cost already communicated to the petitioners at the time of allotment. It was further mentioned in the letter that in view of the provisions of proviso to Regulation 10(3) of the Housing Board Haryana (Allotment Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulations: 1972 the price of any tenement cannot be charged to the disadvantage of an allottee after the execution of the agreement though this provision has been deleted since 22.4.1977. Since the agreement had been executed prior to the deletion of this provision, the Board had decided not to charge more than the tentative cost already communicated to the petitioners. It was further mentioned that the tentative cost already communicated at the time of allotment be considered as final. However, in the year 1982, vide letter dated 25.2.1982 (annexure P-6) the respondent Board intimated to the petitioner Subhash Chander that the cost of the houses had been increased by Rs. 4,225/- and the same should be deposited within 30 days. It was mentioned in this letter that the increase in the price was due to enhancement in the compensation of land. It is this increase in the price of the houses that has been challenged by way of present writ petitions.

(3.) Mr. H.S. Gill, learned senior Advocate submitted that once the Board has intimated vide letter 7.2.1979 (Annexure 'P-5') that the tentative price be considered as final there could not be any increase in the price thereafter. The learned counsel further submitted even that if the price was to be increased that should have been distributed proportionately between the residential area and the commercial area. According to the learned counsel the price of the commercial area where there was Cinema, Shopping Complex, School etc, had not been increased. The residents of the residential area could not be burdened with entire enhanced compensation.