BALDEV SINGH DHANJU Vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are thirteen writ petitions which are being disposed by this judgment. Six Writ Petitions (Nos. 4482/ 1986, 7564/1987, 7113/1988, 7128/1987, 6154/1988 and 8601/1988) relate to allotment of flats in a draw held on November 27, 1983. Three Writ Petitions (Nos. 5082, 7183 and 10072 of 1988) relate to allotment of flats in a draw held on November 28, 1987. Two Writ Petitions (Nos. 6657 and 7889 of 1988) relate to allotment of flats in a draw held in May, 1988. The remaining two Writs Petitions (Nos. 3707 and 3708 of 1987) relate to construction of flats under self-financing scheme. In all the writ petitions, referred to above, the dispute is regarding fixation of price of the flats as determined by the Chandigarh Housing Board (hereinafter called 'the Board'). The claim of the petitioners is that at the (sic) to be constructed by the Board, though tentative price was mentioned, however, at the time of completion of the flats, the same were allotted to the petitioners at a very exorbitant price which was arbitrarily fixed. Similar is the claim of the petitioners who were allotted flats under the self-financing scheme.

(2.) With respect to houses constructed by the Board, the petitioners earlier moved this Court in CW.P. No. 2412 of 1982 (Baldev Singh v. Chandigarh Housing Board) alleging therein that though flats were constructed in 1982, the petitioners were not allotted the same. It was during the pendency of the writ petition that the Board allotted the flats to them. The writ petition was disposed of by giving directions to the Board to re-fix the value of the flats constructed taking into consideration the rule of law as laid down by Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Sadhana Agarwal v. Indore Development Authority, Indore, AIR 1986 Madh Pra 88. The Board looked into the matter and came to the conclusion that no relief could be granted to the petitioners in the matter of fixation of price of the flats constructed by the Board. The same was fixed in accordance with the guidelines given in the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court as well as guidelines issued by Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO). Since the petitioners were not satisfied with the reply given by the Board, they challenged the same in the aforesaid writ petitions, which are for disposal. As already noticed above, similar challenge was made with respect to the fixation of prices of the flats constructed under the self-financing scheme.

(3.) The stand of the respondent-Board is to the effect that the price of the flats constructed by the Board as fixed at the time of allotment was tentative which was revised and finalised at the time of completion of the construction of the flats. The petitioners, while entering into agreements with the Board, had accepted the revised sale price and they could not re-agitate the same in these petitions. Further, it is alleged that the price was fixed in accordance with guidelines issued by the HUDCO which had provided finances for the construction of such flats from time to time. At this stage, it may be noticed that full details of the amount spent in the construction of the flats were not given. At the time of arguments, some material was produced on behalf of the Board regarding the manner of fixing the price of the flats which will be considered.