SUKH PAL SINGH KANG Vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE basic amenities of life include a home stead for which almost the sole repository is either the State or various Housing Boards working under it. An individual, who longs all his life to get a dwelling unit commensurate to his capacity and status is left with no choice but for to try his luck in various Housing schemes floated by the Government or various Housing Boards. Can the Government Housing Boards increase the price of dwelling units, be it a plot or built in flat, at any time and on any ground by merely mentioning in the offer of allotment that the price then settled is tentative, is the only question that has been mooted out and asked for adjudication from this Court by Sukh Pal Singh Kang through present petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The facts need a necessary mention.

(2.) THE Chandigarh Housing Board advertised Housing scheme for general public in the year 1986 for built-up dwelling units in Sector 45-A and B at Chandigarh. The last date for receipt of applications was fixed as December 4, 1986. Petitioner, in pursuance of the advertisement, applied for a High Income Group category I (here-in-after to be referred to as HIG) flat in Sector 45-A and B, Chandigarh. There was 1300 square feet covered area of the advertised units and the tentative cost was fixed at Rs. 2. 25 lacs. The terms and conditions of the scheme, eligibility, mode of allotment, mode of payment etc. were set out in the brochure. An initial deposit of Rs. 11,250/- was required to be made by petitioner which was accordingly made. Request of petitioner for allotment of a dwelling unit was acceded to vide letter dated June 2, 1988 under category-I and he was allocated ground floor dwelling unit in Sector 45-A, Chandigarh, as a result of draw of lots held on May 14, 1988. The Housing Board fixed a schedule of payments and in compliance thereof, petitioner started depositing various instalments on due dates in accordance with the payment schedule. Nearly a year after the acceptance of his application and when he had already paid few instalments, the respondent-Housing Board addressed letter dated April 11, 1989 to the petitioner informing him that it was proposed to improve the design of dwelling units so as to provide better accommodation and more facilities to the allottees. In view of these objectives of the Board, it was decided to increase the plinth area of the flats from the originally advertised 1300 square feet to revised plinth area of 1730 sq. feet. The decision to increase the size of accommodation obviously resulted in refixation of tentative cost of the flats which was then worked out at Rs. 3. 78 laces for the ground floor and Rs. 3. 4 lacs for first and second floors. It is pleaded that respondent Board while revising the tentative cost of the flats took into consideration various factors including increased plinth area, additional facilities and better specifications being provided and increase in the cost of building material and labour. The mode of payment was also revised as set out in the letter dated April 11, 1989 and at the time of taking possession, petitioner was required to deposit Rs. 55,000/- for the ground floor. This revised plan and increase in the cost of flat were accepted by petitioner and he then started depositing instalments of Rs. 20,000/- each. Vide letter dated February 25, 1992 petitioner was allotted dwelling unit No. 91 of HIG Category I in Sector 45-A, Chandigarh. However, vide the same letter, he was asked to take possession of the flat on payment of Rs. 1,16,079/-as by then the total cost was increased from Rs. 3. 78 lacs to 4. 95 lacs. It is this increase as evidenced by letter vide which petitioner was asked to take possession that has been challenged by styling the same to be wholly arbitrary.

(3.) BESIDES challenging the increase in price on various grounds like delay in construction on account of fault of the respondent-Housing Board, there being no provision in the brochure of information and various other letters of allotment etc. with regard to increase in the price for any reason whatsoever, it has also been pleaded that one Dr. Surinder Sekhon, who was an old applicant of the same scheme as the petitioner, was allotted flat of identical design, size and plinth area in Sector 39-B, Chandigarh. Earlier, the tentative cost of said flat on the ground floor was fixed at Rs. 4 lacs. However, on September 13, 1991 Dr. Sekhon was issued letter of possession for dwelling unit No. 1080 HIG Category I in Sector 32-B, Chandigarh demanding a total consideration of Rs. 3. 75 lacs only. As in the case of petitioner, in the case of flats in Sector 39-B also, all the price determining factors were duly considered by respondent-Board while fixing tentative cost at Rs. 4 lacs. However, in the case where the tentative cost has been fixed at Rs. 4 lacs, the Board granted possession at total price of Rs. 3. 75 lacs whereas petitioner was asked to deposit an amount of about Rs. 1,17,000/- more, Again one Smt. Veena Kamboj, who applied under the 1986 scheme alongwith petitioner, was issued letter of possession Sated July 30, 1990 vide which total consideration demanded by respondent Board was Rs. 3,78,300/ -. It is pleaded that there was no justification for demanding an amount of Rs. 3. 78 lacs from Smt. Veena Kamboj and from petitioner an amount of Rs. 4. 95 lacs for similar dwelling unit.