Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute between Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) and an allottee, Jagdeep Singh, regarding the demand of additional price for a plot allotted in 1986. The respondent was allotted plot no.1084 in Sector-14, Hisar at ₹224.90 per sq. yard. In 1993, HUDA issued a notice demanding additional price of ₹76.80 per sq. yard, citing increased land cost from ₹1,21,000 to ₹3,00,000 per acre due to revision of transfer rate from Animal Husbandry Department. The respondent filed a civil suit in 2003 challenging the demand. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that under the allotment conditions, additional price could only be demanded if land cost was enhanced by a competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act, which was not the case. The first appellate court and the High Court upheld this decision. The Supreme Court dismissed HUDA's appeal, affirming that the demand was not permissible under the terms of allotment. The court noted that the allotment letter specifically provided for additional demand only upon enhancement of land cost by a court or authority under the Land Acquisition Act. Since the revision was merely an internal transfer rate adjustment between government departments, it did not fall within the contractual condition. The court also observed that HUDA, being a non-profitable organization, could not unilaterally revise the price contrary to the agreed terms. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Law - Allotment of Plots - Additional Price Demand - Conditions of Allotment - The dispute pertained to demand of additional price for plot allotted by HUDA. The allotment letter permitted additional demand only if cost of land was enhanced by competent authority under Land Acquisition Act. Since there was no such enhancement, the demand was held invalid. The court upheld concurrent findings of courts below that the demand was not permissible. (Paras 1-6) B) Contract Law - Interpretation of Contract - Binding Nature of Conditions - The conditions contained in the allotment letter are binding on both parties. The appellant could not unilaterally revise the price based on internal transfer rate revision between government departments. The court held that the demand was contrary to the terms of allotment. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the demand of additional price by HUDA from the allottee was permissible under the terms and conditions of the allotment letter when there was no enhancement in the cost of land by any competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The demand of additional price by HUDA was held not permissible under the terms of allotment. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Additional price demand permissible only if cost of land enhanced by competent authority under Land Acquisition Act
- Allotment conditions binding on parties
- No enhancement in land cost by any court or authority
- Demand based on revision of transfer rate between government departments not covered
