Judgment:
N.K. Sud, J.
1. This order shall dispose of three Letters Patent Appeals L.P.A. Nos. 237 of 1994, 267 of 1994 and 1022 of 1994. They arise out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 7563 of 1993, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed.
2. The appellants-writ petitioners in response to an advertisement applied for the allotment of Category III flats in the Modern Residential Complex at Manimajra at a price of Rs. 2.25 lacs per unit. A tentative schedule for making the payment was also laid down in the advertisement. After some delay, an offer was made to the allottees to take possession of the plots and the price along with the schedule of the payment was also given therein. In the said offer, the price which had earlier been determined at Rs. 2.25 lacs was increased to Rs. 3 lacs and the amount of each instalment was also substantially increased. The appellants-writ petitioners challenged the revised price by filing the writ petitions which have been dismissed vide the impugned order. Hence, these appeals.
3. When the appeal had come up for preliminary hearing, an interim order dated 11.4.1994 was passed whereby the appellants' prayer for interim relief was declined. However, liberty was granted to the appellants to take possession of the flats by paying the revised price subject to the outcome of the appeal. Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned senior counsel for the appellants points out that in pursuance to the said interim order the appellants had approached the respondents for obtaining possession of the flats in question by paying the revised price. However, instead of charging the revised price, the appellants were also asked to pay penal interest thereon which was also paid by them under protest. Learned Counsel, therefore, also challenges the action of the respondents in charging the penal interest.
4. Learned Counsel also points out that a similar claim had been made in Civil Writ Petition No. 6335 of 1993 by some other persons who had been allotted Category IV flats in response to the same advertisement in the same complex. Their claim was partly, allowed by the learned Single Judge. However, being not satisfied with the relief granted by the learned Single Judge, they preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 732 of 199S which was allowed vide order dated 3.8.2005 and the matter was remitted back to the respondent Board for re-decision on the question of escalation of the price of the flats and for re-determining the same in the light of the broad principles laid down in Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr., (1997-3)117 P.L.R. 261 Mr. Sarin points out that the terms and conditions of allotment of Category III and Category IV flats are the same. He, therefore, states that the matter is fully covered by the judgment of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 732 of 1995, decided on 3.8.2005 and thus these appeals be also disposed of in the same terms. A copy of the judgment in that case has been placed on record and its operative part reads as under:
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, : [1989]1SCR743 , followed in Indore Development Authority v. Smt. Sadhana Aggarwal and Ors., : [1995]2SCR555 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 Anr., (1997-3)117 P.L.R. 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.
We, therefore, allow L.P.A. No. 732 of 1995 filed by the appellants-Mathura Prashad and Ors. but dismiss the appeals filed by the Board. Annexure P.5 is accordingly quashed. We further direct that the while re-determining the price of the flats the broad principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments will be kept in mind by the Board. Dasti.
5. After hearing the counsel for the appellants and going through the records as also the judgment in Letters Patent Appeal No. 732 of 1995, we are satisfied that the matter is fully covered by the said judgment. Accordingly, we dispose of these appeals in the same terms. We, however, add that since in the present case, after the filing of the appeals, the respondent Board has also levied penal interest to which appellants have objected, they shall be at liberty to raise their objections about levy of penal interest also before the respondent Board when the matter is taken up for fresh adjudication in terms of the said judgment.
The appeals are accordingly allowed in the above terms. No costs.