New Delhi, December 12
The Haryana Housing Board cannot ask the beneficiaries to pay any additional cost seven years after allotting the houses, even if the Board has to shell out higher compensation to the landowners at a later stage for acquiring the land, the Supreme Court ruled today.
The Haryana Housing Board cannot ask the beneficiaries to pay any additional cost seven years after allotting the houses, even if the Board has to shell out higher compensation to the landowners at a later stage for acquiring the land, the Supreme Court ruled today.
The rationale for the seven-year deadline “was that once the allottee pays the total price, he may not be subjected to the burden of additional cost after a number of years,” a Bench comprising Justices GS Singhvi and SJ Mukhopadhaya held in a verdict.
The apex court gave the ruling while allowing the appeals filed by some of those who had been allotted houses at Sonepat in 1978 under the schemes meant for economically weaker sections (EWS), lower income group (LIG) and middle income group (MIG).
The allottees had challenged the Board’s additional demand raised against them 10 years after the allotments. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had rejected their pleas at the level of the single judge as well as the Division Bench, prompting them to approach the Supreme Court.
The Bench accepted the contentions of the Board and the Haryana Government that the allotment letters as well as the Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement (HPTA) had made it clear that the price of the tenement specified at the time of allotment was subject to revision in the light of the final bills representing the cost of construction or the land.
However, it was the Board which had “consciously incorporated” in the Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement a prohibition against change in the price after seven years from the date of allotment of tenements, the Bench pointed out.
After including the seven-year deadline, “there is no reason why it should not be asked to honour the commitment made to the allottees that they will not live under the fear of being asked to pay additional price after an indefinite period,” the Bench reasoned.
Unfortunately, the high court did not give due weightage to the prohibition clause, the apex court noted. The wordings of the price regulations made it clear that the “Board had kept in view all the eventualities which could lead to an increase in the cost of land made available for construction of the tenements and yet it thought proper to put an embargo against the revision of price after seven years”.
“In the result, the appeals are allowed ...and the demand notices issued by Estate Manager, Sonepat, quashed,” the SC ruled.
No comments:
Post a Comment