- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing respondents to allot the M. I. G. accommodation in Basundhare Yojna District Ghaziabad on the initial term as per the plan phase 16-2- 82 booklet and registration No. 1835 dated 3-4-1987 Annexure IV to the writ petition. The petitioner applied for M. I. G. house under the said Yojna and he has alleged that the houses mentioned in the scheme have been changed to multi storey building and the respondents have unauthorisedly and arbitrarily demanded Rs. 2,53,979. 00 instead of Rs. 60,000. It is alleged in para 10 of the petition that no notice prior to the alteration of the scheme was supplied on the petitioner. It is alleged that the demand of payment in lump sump is also arbitrary.
(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed and we have perused the same. In para 4 it is stated that the details given in Annexure 2 to the petition were only provisional and was only approximate and was subject to variation depending on price escalation. In para 6 it is stated that the petitioner has specifically mentioned that he is ready to purchase it on cash down basis and has given his consent vide Annexure 12 to the counter-affidavit. In para 8 it is stated that the petitioner was well aware of the terms and conditions including the term that the cost and area can be changed, and the changed position was notified in the newspapers. In para 11 it is stated that it is mentioned in the registration booklet that the size of the house its design, price etc. can be changed and it was changed by a newspaper notice. In Dr. Barthakur and others v. Ghaziabad Development Authority, 2003 (52) ALR 339, a Division Bench of this Court upheld the contention that the initial cost was only tentative and hence can be changed. In Bareilly Development Authority and another v. Ajay Pal Singh and others, 1989 (2) SCC 116, the Supreme Court held that in the brochure of the authority there was a right to enhance the cost, and hence the revision of the cost was justified. In Sanjay Place Group Housing Association v. Agra Development Authority and others, 1992 (2) SCC 426, it was held that even after delivery of possession of the flats on full payment of the cost the Development Authority can make additional demands.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has relied on a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 303 of 1995, Sheela Devi and others v. Chairman, K. D. A. , decided on 21-5-97 (Per B. M. Lal, J. ). In our opinion in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above the decision of the Division Bench of this Court is not good law. Following the said decisions, this petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;