MATHURA PARSHAD Vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order shall dispose of Letters Patent Appeals No. 732 of 1995, 210, 218, 412 and 621 of 1996. They arise out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in C.W.P. No. 6335 of 1993, whereby the writ petitions have been allowed granting a limited relief to them.

(2.) IN view of the fact that we intend to remit the case to the respondent- Board for re-decision only on the question of escalation in the price of the flats in question, the detailed facts of the writ petitions need not be reproduced.

(3.) DURING the course of hearing today, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajai Pal Singh, JT 1989(1) SC 368, followed in Indore Development Authority v. Smt. Sadhana Aggarwal and others, 1995(2) RRR 335 (SC) : JT 1995(3) SC 1 and has argued that it was perhaps not possible for him to urge before this Court that the increase in price was based on wrong facts and figures as admittedly the price advertised was a tentative one. He has, however, urged that in the light of a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1998(1) RCR(Civil) 89 (SC) : (1997-3)117 PLR 261, it was open to the allottees to challenge an arbitrary fixation of the price and that in any case before any additional price could be determined, the allottees were entitled to a hearing. It has also been pointed out that in this situation, the proper remedy would be to remit the case to the Board so that a proper price fixation can be made, after notice to the appellants. We find merit in this plea.