KULWANT SINGH Vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 1578 of 1986 (Kulwant Singh and others v. The Chandigarh Housing Board and another) and Civil Writ Petition No. 9846 of 1988 (Surjit Singh and others v. The Chandigarh Housing Board and another), as both the writ petitions are inter- connected and also raise common questions of law. In Civil Writ Petition No. 1578 of 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Kulwant Singh's case), the petitioners invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the demand made for enhanced cost of dwelling units alloted to the petitioners under the Self Financing Scheme by allotment letters Annexures P-3 dated 18.12.1984 to P-3/B issued on 18.12.1984 and 26.2.1985 for Ground Floor, First Floor and Second Floor. The petitioners have also prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioners and to exclude the unwarranted components from the disposal cost and charge the original price quoted in the Scheme, including the cost of land at the rate it was given to respondent No. 1, Chandigarh Housing Board (for short "the CHB"), as indicated in statement (Annexure P-4).

(2.) IN Civil Writ Petition No. 9846 of 1968 (hereinafter referred to as Surjit Singh's case), the petitioners again invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking identical relief as the petitioners in Kulwant Singh's case. The CHB issued an advertisement and invited applications in the year 1981 from Government Employees of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh, who were domicile of Chandigarh and resided at Chandigarh for the last three years, who retired after 1.1.1976 or were due to retire on or before 31.12.1983, for consideration of formulation of a housing scheme for them. After receipt of the applications, CHB formulated "Self Financing Scheme 1981" (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme). The Scheme was duly published in newspaper. Two categories of flats were offered under the Scheme. The salient features of the scheme were as under :-

(3.) IT is further pleaded by the petitioners in both the writ petitions that possession of the land in Sector 43-B and 44-D was taken on 1.12.1979 and 25.2.1981, respectively. U.T. issued allotment letter to CHB on 23.2.1982 and 23.3.1984, respectively. In all communications, U.T. had allotted the land to CHB at the rate of Rs. 80/- per square yard. This cost of land had been included by the CHB in the tentative costs published in the newspaper and in the brochure. The petitioners had applied for allotment on the strength of statements made in the newspaper and the brochure. According to the petitioners, the CHB is estopped from charging the higher cost at the rate of Rs. 175/- per sq. yard instead of Rs. 80/-. Even otherwise, the petitioners in Kulwant Singh's case and the original allottees in Surjit Singh's case had deposited Rs. 56,000/- each upto November, 1983 with the CHB. This amount was kept unutilised upto February, 1984. No interest was paid to the petitioners. In Kulwant Singh's case, the petitioner paid another sum of Rs. 16,000/- each in May, 1984 making a total payment of Rs. 72,000/- each. The respondents had invited applications in 1981, but tenders for execution of work in Sector 44-D were only invited on 24.12.1983. The work itself was started in February, 1984. The petitioners were made to suffer a loss of Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- each. In Surjit Singh's case, the petitioners complain that the CHB has wrongly demanded payment of lease money w.e.f. 1982 i.e. much prior to the date on which the petitioners were given the actual possession. The petitioners also complain that similar dwelling units under another Self Financing Scheme in Sector 44-D have been allotted at the following prices:- "Ground Floor Rs. 1,07,000.00 First Floor Rs. 93,100.00 Second Floor Rs. 92,00.00 Thus, the CHB is said to have arbitrarily increased the price which is discriminatory in nature.