Judgment:
Writ Petition No.3750/2013 13.3.2013 Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rakesh Jain and Shri Rohit Jain, learned counsel for the respondents.
Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.
The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 6.12.2012 passed by respondent no.2 the Estate Officer, M.P.Housing Board, Chhindwara Division, Chhindwara, whereby the respondents are seeking to recover a sum of Rs.5.55 lacs as consideration for Housing Board LIG residential house constructed by the Housing Board which had been initially allotted by them for a sum of Rs.2.85 lacs which has already been paid by the petitioner.
The petitioner submits that the price of the LIG accommodation has been increased only on account of the Collector rate which has been recently notified for the purposes of registration and stamp duty which is not permissible as the authorities are only required to take into consideration the actual escalation while determining the price of the flat as has been held by the Supreme Court in the cases of T.N.Housing Board v.
Service Authority (2011) 11 SCC 1.and Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v.
Prakash Dal Mill (2011) 6 SCC 714.
It is submitted that the representation filed by the petitioner did not yield any result, hence this petition.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Housing Board, on advance notice, submits that the price has been fixed taking into consideration the Collector rate notified in the area.
He, however, submits that the actual escalation has been calculated but the amount has been demanded on the basis of notified Collector rate and the escalation.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner files a fresh representation alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition within fifteen days of obtaining the same before the respondent/ authorities, the concerned authority shall take into consideration the contention of the petitioner, ascertain the actual amount invested by them, calculate the escalation, take into consideration the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of T.N.Housing Board v.
Service Authority (2011) 11 SCC 1.and Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v.
Prakash Dal Mill (2011) 6 SCC 71.(supra) and thereafter decide the matter afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by passing a reasoned order.
The aforesaid exercise be completed by the concerned authority as far as possible within three months from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioner.
It is further directed that till the decision is taken by the authority in the matter, allotment made in favour of the petitioner shall not be cancelled and no third party right in the LIG accommodation alloted to the petitioner shall be created by the respondents.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner and, therefore, the concerned authority, while deciding the representation of the petitioner, would be at liberty to take into consideration all facts and facets of the case and thereafter take a decision thereon by either accepting or rejecting the same.
With the aforesaid directions the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
JUDGE ps