The Singh Cooperative House Building Society Limited vs The Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others

Lisa Gill, J.—The Chandigarh Administration framed a scheme, namely, the Chandigarh Allotment of Land to Co-operative House Building Societies Scheme, 1991 with a view to promote private housing and optimum utilization of land by constructing multistoreyed structures (Annexure P-1). The land was decided to be allotted on chunk basis to the Chandigarh Housing Board for further allotment to the eligible Co-operative House Building Societies in accordance with the notification dated 28.05.1991 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner society along with others challenged the said scheme before this court to seek a direction for allotment of individual and developed plots to the members of the society instead of flats as was envisaged in 1991 scheme. Pursuant to the orders of this court the petitioner society had deposited 10% of the tentative price. The writ petition was finally dismissed on 18.12.1996 but with an observation that in view of the interim order, the societies who had deposited 10% of the sale consideration and were found eligible for allotment or had been allotted the sites, would be liable to pay the balance 15% of the amount so as to make it 25% as per the terms and conditions of allotment as agreed upon by them with further interest @ 18% per annum.

The petitioner is now before this court challenging the notification dated 01.02.2000 wherein the rate of allotment has been fixed at Rs. 2500/- per square yard. The petitioner also challenges the letter dated 11.04.2000(Annexure P-7) and letter dated 02.06.2000 (Annexure P-8) wherein the time for depositing the amount has been extended.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that firstly it is only the cost of the land which is to be deposited and the authorities are not entitled to recover the costs per member as it would amount to recovering three times the costs of the land as three storey building is to be constructed. Secondly, the rate has been revised arbitrarily to Rs. 2500/- per square yard and the society is entitled to allotment of land at the rate of Rs. 750/- per square yard.

The first plea that the price is not to be recovered per member is not tenable in the light of the fact that the society shall be erecting three storeyed flats over the allotted land and it is an admitted position that the external development, infrastructure etc. has to be provided keeping in view the total housing capacity of the society. It is thus not just the cost of the land which has to be recovered from the allottee. There is thus no illegality in the criteria of price determination which has been otherwise also applied uniformly.

As regards the second contention, there is no doubt that the petitioner society had applied for the allotment of plot and deposited part of the earnest money, however, this fact itself does not clothe the petitioner with any right for allotment of the land at the rate prevailing at the time of submission of application. It is clear from the written statement that the petitioner has not yet been allotted any land and there was no concluded contract between the petitioner and the respondent-authorities at any specific price. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in a similar situation in Delhi Development Authority Vs. Pushipendra Kumr Jain, , observed as under:-

8................... Mere identification or selection of the allottee does not clothe the person selected with a legal right to allotment at the price prevailing on the date of draw of lots. The scheme evolved by the appellant does not say so either expressly or by necessary implication. On the contrary, clause (14) thereof says that ''the estimated prices mentioned in the brochure are illustrative and are subject to revision/modification depending upon the exigencies of layout, cost of construction etc.'' It may be noted that registration of applicants under the said scheme opened on 1.9.1979 and closed on 30.9.1979. About 1,70,000 persons applied. Flats were being constructed in a continuous process and lots were being drawn from time to time for a given number of flats ready for allotment. Clause (14) of the Scheme has to be understood in this context - the steady rise in the cost of construction and of land. No provision of law also could be brought to our notice in support of the proposition that mere draw of lots vests an indefeasible right in the allottee for allotment at the price obtaining on the date of draw of lots. In our opinion, since the right to flats arises only on the communication of the letter of allotment, the price or rates prevailing on the date of such communication is applicable unless otherwise provided in the Scheme. If in case the respondent is not willing to take or accept the allotment at such rate, it is always open to him to decline the allotment. We see no unfairness in the above procedure.

Therefore, the allotment of land at the price prevailing in the year 1981 would be nothing but an unjust enrichment of the petitioner at the cost of State exchequer/tax-payers. The authorities are well within the right to charge the prevalent rate at the time of allotment. There is no infirmity in the impugned notification dated 01.02.2000 or the subsequent demand made by the Chandigarh Housing Board. For the reasons afore-stated, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.