Himachal Pradesh High Court
Lpa No. 144/2012 vs Sushil Kumar Gupta And Another on 30 November, 2023
Bench: M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
LPA No. 144 of 2012 a/w
connected matters
Reserved on: 20.11.2023.
.
Pronounced on:30.11.2023.
1. LPA No. 144/2012
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Sushil Kumar Gupta and another .....Respondents.
2. LPA No. 145/2012
of
HP Housing and Urban Dev. authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Ajay Chauhan and another .....Respondents.
rt
3. LPA No. 146/2012
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Partap Chand Sharma and another .....Respondents.
4. LPA No. 147/2012
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Prem Lata Sharma and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Tarvinder Kaur Negi and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Narinder Kumar Sood and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Dr.J.K. Sharma and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Gopal Krishan Goel and another .....Respondents.
.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Dr. Kuldeep Maria and others .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Ashok Kumar Mahajan and another .....Respondents.
of
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus rt
Dr. Slilpi Sood and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Bhupender Pal Gupta and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
M.L Gupta and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Anil Gupta and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Sarwan Singh and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Manjuna and another .....Respondents.
.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Arvind Kumar Sood and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
of
Mangal Sain and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus rt
Hira Mani Sharma and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Surjit Kaur and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Tarsem Lal and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
R.K. Khanna and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Satish Kumar Sharma and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Ashok Chauhan and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Dr. Gian Chauhan and another .....Respondents.
.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Ravi Kant Dogra and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
of
Versus
R.S. Kochhar and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority
rt .....Appellant.
Versus
Meena Sood and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Dr. Randhir Chauhan and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
V.K. Vashisht and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Anita Vaidya and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
O.P. Bhatta and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Lakh Pal Singh Dhaulta and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
.
Harish Chandra Joshi and others .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Suneel Kumar Angra and another .....Respondents.
of
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Ashwani Kumar Arora and another .....Respondents.
rt
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Brahm Dutt Kashyap and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Arun Kumar Katara and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Kamaljit Singh Jaswal and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Kameshwar Kant Gupta and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Dr. Ajay Sood and and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Surinder Chauhan and another .....Respondents.
.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Reeta Chauhan and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
of
O.P. Aggarwal and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus rt
Vikas Bhushan Lalit and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Manohar Lal Bhagra and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Bidi Chand Pardesi and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
N.K. Kashyap and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Naresh Kumar Kashyap and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Arun Kumar Pandey and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Kamlender Kanga and another .....Respondents.
.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Neera Walia and another .....Respondents.
of
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Krishan Pal Thakur and another .....Respondents.
rt
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Ashok Dwivedi and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
O.P. Sood and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Sudhir Chander Sharma and another .....Respondents.
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority .....Appellant.
Versus
Shashi Chauhan and another .....Respondents.
Er. M.S. Chauhan .....Appellant.
Versus
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority & ors. .....Respondents.
Jawahar Kaul .....Appellant.
Versus
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority
& another. .....Respondents.
.
Vandana Thakur .....Appellant.
Versus
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority &
another. .....Respondents.
of
Ashwani Kumar Arora .....Appellant.
Versus
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority &
ors. .....Respondents.
Prem Lata Sharma
rt
.....Appellant.
Versus
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority & ors.
.....Respondents.
Dr. Ranja Rao .....Appellant.
Versus
HP Housing and Urban Dev. Authority & ors.
.....Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner(s)/
Appellant(s): Mr. Bhupender Gupta & Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Sr. Advocates
with Ms. Rinki Kashmiri, Advocate, Mr. Vinay Kuthiala,
Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate, Mr.
S.C. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arvind Negi,
Advocate, Mr. Dinesh Thakur and Mr. Amit Singh
Chandel, Advocates, for the respective appellant(s)/
petitioner(s) in the respective petitions and LPAs.
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Pranay
Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate Generals; Mr. Arsh
.
Rattan & Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate Generals,
for the respondent(s)/State in the respective LPAs/ CWPs.
Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Vandana
Kuthiala and Mr. Diwan Singh Negi, Advocates, Mr. Neel
Kamal Sood, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vasu Sood, Advocate
and Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Advocate, for the respective
private respondents, in the respective petitions and LPAs.
of
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice
In this batch of cases, the issue which arises for consideration is:
rt
"whether the H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority (in short "the
Authority") is entitled to claim from the respondents in LPAs / Writ Petitioners
in respect of plots/houses which were allotted to them in 1989 under the 5th
Partially Self Financing Scheme and 6th Self financing Scheme certain
additional amounts towards notional interest which it would have earned had it
invested the payments received from such allottees in FDRs earning interest
/opportunity cost or not?".
Background facts
2) The said Authority is a statutory Authority created under the
Himachal Pradesh Housing & Urban Development Authority Act, 2004,
and its predecessors, were the Himachal Pradesh Housing Board,
constituted under the H.P. Housing Board Act, 1972, constituted on
09.11.2000, and prior thereto, the Himachal Pradesh Nagar Vikas
Pradhikaran, and before it, the Shimla Development Authority,
constituted by the State of Himachal Pradesh under Section 42-A of the
.
H.P. Town & Country Planning Act, 1977.In 1989, the Shimla
Development Authority announced the 5th Partially Self Financing
Scheme and 6th Self Finance Scheme for construction and offer for
allotment flats, residential houses and developed plots of different
of
sizes/types on 99 years lease hold basis with renewal after 33 years in
Shimla and issued a Brochure Annexure P-1.
rt
3) Applications were invited from General Public, which were to be
submitted on or before 30th November, 1989.
4) The respondents in the LPAs/petitioners in the CWPs are either
original allottees or transferees therefrom submitted applications and
flats/houses/plots were allotted to them in 1990. For convenience, these
persons would be referred to as "allottees".
5) The brochure provided that 20% of the earnest money was to be paid
before draw of plots, 50% before issuance of letter of possession, and
100% of earnest money after issuance of letter for taking over
possession.
6) It is not in dispute that Foot Note No.2 of the Annexure attached at the
end of the Brochure issued by the Shimla development Authority
.
contained the following condition:
"Shimla Development Authority reserves the right to change the cost depending
upon actual cost of construction, escalation in cost of land or material and
labour etc."
of
7) Under the terms of the brochure as well as the allotment letter, the
price of the land was fixed at Rs.800/- per sq.m which was to be paid in
rt
accordance with the schedule given by the Shimla Development
Authority which was subsequently revised from time to time. Some of
the allottees were also permitted to transfer the plots to others.
CWP no.3206 of 2011
8) For the purpose of consideration, we shall refer to the facts in
CWP no.3206 of 2011, out of which, LPA no.144 of 2012 arises.
9) In that Writ petition, the petitioner is a transferee from an original
allottee of a plot for which the permission was accorded on 28.01.1991
by Shimla Development Authority.
10) Later, vide a letter dt. 10.01.1994, the allottee was informed that due
to increase in cost of land, there would be increase in cost of the plot of
not less than 70% and thus, revised tentative cost of the plot would be
almost doubled. He was further informed that the plot was likely to be
.
completed by the end of 1995 and the increase in price would be
recovered in 30 installments of Rs.2,430/- per month.
11) The allottee made payments in accordance with the terms of the
Brochure/ Scheme and as per the schedule fixed from time to time by
of
the predecessor of the Authority.
12) Through another letter dt. 29.12.1993, the allottees of the plots under
rt
the 6th Self Financial Scheme, were also reminded of Foot Note No.2 of
the Annexure attached to the brochure that the Shimla Development
Authority reserves the right to change the cost depending upon actual
cost of construction, escalation in cost of land or material and labour
etc. The allotees were also informed in this letter that the scheme could
only be completed after the participants discharge their contractual
obligations by making payment of full cost of their Units, since the said
Authority works on "no profit no loss basis" and does not have funds of
its own.
13) After the allottee made payment of the balance amount as demanded, a
lease-deed was executed on 11.04.1996 in favour of the allottee by the
H.P. Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, the successor of the Shimla
Development Authority and the predecessor of the Himachal Urban
.
Development Authority.
14) After being handed-over possession, the allottee constructed his house
on the plot.
15) According to the allottees, the successors of the Shimla Development
of
Authority anticipated increase in cost of the land on account of
enhancement of compensation payable for the acquired land since
rt
proceedings for enhancement of compensation were pending
adjudication in the Courts under the provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894.
16) It is not in dispute that the compensation amount was in fact enhanced
by the Reference Court on 28.08.1995 and later by the High Court of
Himachal Pradesh in 2007.
17) In addition to the proportionate increase in the enhanced
compensation, what is called 'notional interest'/opportunity cost was
demanded by the Himachal Urban Development Authority from the
allottees on the pretext that the said Authority had invested the monies
received from the allottees in the development/construction of the
scheme; and because it did not park the said money in interest bearing
Fixed Deposit Receipts, such interest which it would have earned, had it
.
parked the money in some interest bearing Fixed Deposit Receipts, it
should be paid by the allottes.
18) We may point out at the outset that none of the allottees or the
transferees from allottes have disputed their liability to pay to the
of
Authority any amount due on account of enhancement of compensation
either by the Reference Court or by the High Court.
rt
The First round of litigation between the parties i.e., CWP No.2177 of 2010 and
batch dt.15.6.2010 and decision therein
19) The allottees approached this Court by filing CWP No.2177 of 2010
and batch with regard to fixation of land value in respect of the land
acquired for the Schemes and given to them.
20) A Division Bench of this Court followed passed orders on 15.6.010
and disposed them off following it's previous order dt.19.5.2010 in a
similar case wherein it had held that the Authority did not have any
commercial motive in the transaction; what is the total cost of land
involved in the acquisition, development and transfer, was a simple
question of calculation; all administrative expenses in the process will
have to be included under the head 'cost of land'; that the Authority is
seeking to recover from the allottees only the portion of land value as
enhanced by the superior Courts; and the land value is to be fixed in
.
respect of the entire area acquired for the purpose of transfer adding the
development charges, the charges borne by the Authority for the
amenities, administrative expenses etc.
It directed the Authority to make a proper fixation of actual land
of
value, making it clear that its objective was to function on 'no profit no
loss basis' and in case in the process any of the allottees are to bear any
rt
more liability, the same can be recovered from them.
It further held that being a matter of computation, since neither
the allottees nor the Authority were possessed with the wherewithal in
the process, it would be open to the allottees to nominate two Chartered
Accountants for the purpose of such computation, and those Chartered
Accountants would sit with the Accountants nominated by the Authority
or the Chief Executive Officers and make an endeavour to settle the
accounts.
It also clarified that while fixing the land value in terms of the
judgment, the amounts already paid would have to be duly adjusted.
21) After the said order was passed in CWP No.2177 of 2010 and batch on
15.6.2010, a meeting took place between the team of Chartered
.
Accountants of the allottees and those appointed by the Authority.
22) On 14.09.2010, the Authority supplied copy of the final costing of
Sectors 3 & 4 of New Shimla to the Chartered Accountants of allottees,
who responded to the same by filing objections dt. 17.09.2010, but in
of
terms of a letter dt. 15.01.2011, the objections were rejected.
23) The allottees were required to deposit the entire amount as demanded
rt
by the Authority in terms of letter dt. 10.06.2008 at Rs.613/- per sq.m
extra.
The judgment dt.09.01.2012 of the learned Single Judge in CWP No.3206
of 2011 and batch
24) This prompted the allottees to approach this Court by filing CWP
no.3206 of 2011 and the batch out of which, these LPAs also arise.
25) The learned Single Judge adverted to Note-2 in the Brochure, which
stated that the Shimla Development Authority reserves the right to
change cost depending upon actual cost of construction, escalation in
cost of land, material, labour or for any other unforeseen reasons, and
concluded that the allottees by contractual obligation, would have to
clear the dues before the due dates, and if not, pay interest @ 18% per
annum.
He also noted that only after full recovery of cost of the property,
including interest, would possession be handed over under the lease-
.
deed executed in favour of the allottees.
The learned Single Judge then went on to hold that it is not the
case of the Authority that any one of the conditions, stipulated in the
of
brochure, was breached by the allottees, and that if any such dues are
there, it would be open to the Authority to take appropriate action in
that regard.
rt
The learned Single Judge also recorded that the allottees do not
dispute that there was an overrun of the cost in the acquisition and
development of land and they were ready and willing to pay the actual
cost incurred by the Authority.
He also considered that the Authority, as against the initial cost
of Rs.800/- per square meter, had already recovered Rs.1,415/- per sq.m
as price of land, and is demanding a further amount of Rs.613/- per
sq.m as per the calculation furnished by the Authority in para 39 of his
judgment.
He also noted that the allottees are only disputing the claim for
component of interest towards cost of land amounting to
.
Rs.2,26,34,054/- computed by the Authority @ 16.5% from April 1991
up to March 1996 for a period of nine years, and interest on the cost of
development amounting to Rs.2,87,00,397/- @ 16.5% for a period of
three years, amounting to total of Rs.5,13,34,451/-.
of
The learned Single Judge then held that development of common
area, such as parks, roads and common amenities, such as sewerage,
rt
water & electricity by the Authority would be with respect to the entire
area of the Project; enhanced compensation for the acquired land is not
restricted to the plotted area and it is qua the entire acquired land, and
so, there is no justification for recovering the enhanced cost only from
the allottees of the plots.
He also noted that the Authority and its predecessor had sold the
built up area by computing entire cost of land, including cost of
amenities and escalations, and it was not their case that such enhanced
compensation was not being recovered from such allottees.
He then considered the claim of the Authority for the amount of
Rs.5,13,34,451/-, which it claimed to be opportunity cost, i.e. part of
direct cost and its plea that even in 'no profit no loss' Projects, it has to
be included in the Project as per the accepted norms of costing.
.
He held that such a demand is totally illegal because it was not
contemplated in the scheme/brochure/lease-deed nor there was any
statutory obligation in this regard. He observed as under:-
"44. Be that as it may be, according to HIMUDA Rs.5,13,34,451/-
of
(Rs.2,26,34,054 plus 2,87,00397) is being recovered as an
"opportunity cost" which is "part of direct cost and even in no profit
no loss project it has to be included in the project as per the accepted
rt
norms of costing". Now this is totally illegal. It is neither contemplated
in the scheme/ brochure/ lease deed nor is there any statutory
regulation in this regard. "Actual cost of construction, escalation in
cost of land, material, labour or for any other unforeseen reasons" -
"escalations" - "Contingencies stipulated under Regulation 26.5" do
not envisage levy of such interest. Neither did HIMUDA inform the
petitioners/allottees of the same nor did they accept such
representations. There was neither any offer nor any acceptance. This
unilateral imposition of interest is illegal, unconstitutional, unethical
and unconscionable. What is the Authority contractual or statutory to
impose such demand has not been disclosed. In fact it is also not in the
spirit of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court
wherein it has been specifically directed that amounts to be calculated
is on no profit no loss basis.
45. Most importantly books maintained by HIMUDA also do not reflect
that a sum of Rs.5,13,34,451/- was actually paid by them as interest to
third parties. Significantly interest paid by HIMUDA towards cost of
the land and development has been specifically charged from the
allottees about which there is no dispute. Consequently I find that
HIMUDA has failed to explain as to how a sum of Rs.5,13,34,451/- can
.
be recovered by them from any of the allottees, including the plot
holders some of whom are before this Court as petitioners.
46. It is argued by Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocate, learned
Counsel for HIMUDA that notional interest is to generate money for
administrative charges for unforeseen circumstances. It is not an
imaginary cost but incidental in nature. I am afraid contention merits
of
rejection. Administrative charges to the extent of 10% already stand
calculated about which there is no dispute. It is further argued that
rt
since such amounts had not crystallized and recovered from the
allottees, they could not be reflected in the books of accounts.
Submission is self defeating. It only shows that no money was actually
paid or cost incurred by HIMUDA yet the same is now sought to be
recovered. It would be worthwhile noticing that all payments stood
paid by the allottees between the years 1989 and 1996-97 and as per
Statement Annexure-PX, on amounts recovered by HIMUDA from the
allottees, which were invested somewhere else, interest to the extent of
12.38 crores has accrued, which benefit has not been passed over to
the allottees."
( emphasis supplied)
26) Thus, the learned Single had categorically held that the claim of this
amount towards alleged opportunity cost or notional interest, was a
unilateral imposition on the allottees without having any basis in either
contract or statute or in the scheme/brochure/lease-deed, and is illegal
for it to make such a demand while professing to be doing business on
'no profit no loss basis'. More so, when its Books of Accounts do not
.
reflect the sum and it was an expenditure not incurred by them as they
did not pay any interest to any 3rd party; and the interest paid by it
towards cost of land and development was specifically charged from the
allottees for which there is no dispute.
of
27) The learned Single Judge specifically noted that all payments stood
paid by the allottees between 1989 and 1996-97, and as per a statement
rt
Annexure-PX, on amounts recovered by the Authority from the
allottees, which had been invested elsewhere, an interest of Rs.12.38
crores had accrued, which benefit had also not been passed on to the
allottees.
28) He also observed that the allottees had never been informed that the
component of notional interest would be charged from them either at the
time of allotment or at the time of execution of the lease/handing over
of possession.
29) The learned Single Judge further held that the Himachal Urban
Development Authority is a 'State' and not a private developer, and
having made a promise to allot land on 'no profit no loss basis' under
the Self Financing Scheme, it cannot be permitted to act as an
unscrupulous Real Estate Developer and cheat people by raising illegal
.
demands in a clandestine manner.
30) He also held that it cannot be permitted to modify the scheme midway
and increase the total saleable area, though it did and this altered the
character of the scheme and commercially benefited it; he ruled that
of
"entire administrative expenses" would not take in its sweep
component of "notional interest", since the Authority had separately
rt
calculated interest payable towards the cost of land and development
and also charged administrative charges to the extent of 10% on the
entire cost of acquisition of land and development thereof.
31) The learned Single, therefore, quashed the additional demands made
by the Authority towards the claim of notional interest and granted
relief to the allottees.
32) Assailing the same, these Letters Patent Appeals are filed.
Consideration by the Court
33) Standing Counsel for the Authority contended that the common order
passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous and that the Authority
is entitled to the opportunity cost.
34) While computing the cost of the land, the Authority has included an
amount of Rs.2,26,34,054/- on account of notional interest @ 16.5%
.
from April 1991 to March 1996; and further the notional interest of
Rs.2,87,00,397/- @ 16.5% for 3 years on account of notional interest.
35) Thus, a total amount of Rs.5,13,36,451/- has been included in the cost
of the land on account of notional interest.
of
36) Counsel for the allottees contended that the allottees had never agreed
to this claim anywhere; that it is the admitted case that no such interest
rt
on capital investment has ever been paid by the Authority to any third
party, and on the contrary they have retained excess amount received
from the petitioner in 1997 till 2007, in which year enhanced
compensation was paid to the land owners whose lands had been
acquired for the Scheme / project. They pointed out that it has not even
been entered in its books of accounts.
37) We agree with the said contention of the counsel for the allottees.
38) None of the learned Counsel appearing for the Authority could
support the said claim either on the basis of a contract to which the
allottees or their transferees were parties, or on the basis of any statute,
or any term of the brochure or lease-deed .
39) We are of the view that such a claim is being made unilaterally
without any legal basis.
.
40) For an organization like the Authority which is a "State" within the
meaning of Art.12 of the Constitution of India, and which claims to run
business on a 'no profit no loss basis' , to contend that it is entitled to
such a claim which has no legal basis, is impermissible in law.
of
41) While its demand from the allottees amounts towards the cost
incurred on account of enhancement of compensation under the Land
rt
Acquisition Act, is perfectly justifiable, the Authority cannot be
permitted to unjustly enrich itself by making claims which do not have
any legal basis.
42) As held by the Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority &
Another vs. Joint Action Committee & Others1, a person would be
bound by the terms of the contract subject of course to its validity; a
contract in certain situations may also be avoided; with a view to make
novation of a contract binding and in particular some of the terms and
conditions thereof, the offeree must be made known thereabout.
(2008) 2 SCC 672
The Supreme Court declared that a party to the contract
cannot, at a later stage, while the contract was being performed, impose
.
terms and conditions which were not part of the offer and which were
based upon unilateral issuance of office orders, but not communicated
to the other party to the contract.
It also held that terms and conditions of a contract, though
of
capable of alteration or modification, such alteration or modification
cannot be done unilaterally, unless there exists any provision either in
rt
contract itself or in law; and new terms of contract cannot be thrust
upon the other party to the contract unilaterally.
43) This judgment has been rightly followed by the learned Single Judge
in the impugned judgment while granting relief to the
allottees/transferees from them.
44) The reasoning of the learned Single Judge is unexceptionable and we
completely endorse it.
45) None of the counsel for the Authority were able to point out any flaw
in the same.
46) For all these reasons, these Letters Patent Appeals filed by the
Authority, are dismissed and the Writ petitions filed by the
allottees/transferees from them, are allowed; and the Authority is held
disentitled to claim any notional interest/opportunity cost from them.
.
No costs.
47) Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao)
of
Chief Justice
rt (Jyotsna Rewal Dua)
November 30, 2023 Judge
(Yashwant)
