- (1.) M. Katju, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
(2.) BY means of this petition the petitioners have prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents Ghaziabad Development Authority not to deviate from the terms and conditions contained in the Booklet issued to the petitioner at the time of registration under the 1995 Scheme of Central Government Employees, by demanding higher installments, lump sum lease rent and by charging interest from the petitioner regarding the houses allotted to them under the said Scheme at Lajpat Nagar, Ghaziabad. It is stated in paragraph 2 of the petition that petitioners are all Central employees and they had been allotted different categories of houses under the aforesaid Scheme. The Ghaziabad Development Authority advertised the Scheme for providing houses for Central Government Employees only. The Ghaziabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to GDA) by an advertisement invited applications for registration under the said Scheme on the terms and conditions regarding the allotment contained in the Booklet which was issued alongwith the Registration Form. The petitioners applied under the said Scheme after obtaining applications cum registration form and they were also issued a Booklet containing the terms and conditions of the allotment. Photostat copy of the Booklet is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The terms therein are mentioned in paragraph 12 and 13 of the writ petition. It is stated in paragraph 14 of the writ petition that an important condition in the Booklet was that the cost of the land would be calculated on the basis of the prevalent sector rate on the date of registration. It is alleged that none of the conditions advertised mentioned that any interest would be charged from the petitioners. It is alleged that the costs of the houses were final and conclusive. The petitioners deposited the amounts mentioned in paragraph 20 of the writ petition and thereafter final allotments were made in their favour and possession letters were issued vide Annexure-6, 7 and 8 to the writ petition. In paragraph 25 and 26 of the writ petition it is stated that subsequently the cost was enacted and for the first time there was a mention of the rate of interest. It is stated that this was unwarranted and the enhanced costs was beyond the means of the petitioner who are middle class people. True copies of the statement of the allottees are Annexure-10, 11 and 12 to the writ petition. It is alleged in paragraph 41 of the writ petition that since the date when the Scheme was started or advertised there was no mention or intimation of any change in the rate of interest. It is alleged in paragraph 43 and 44 of the petition that the increase in cost and demand of lump sum payment at the time of delivery of possession was wholly arbitrary and illegal.
(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed and we have perused the same. It is stated in paragraph 5 of the same that on account of rising prices of building materials, labour charges and comparatively higher standards of development in the National Capital Region Area and the net cost of the internal infrastructural development and services including roads, drainage, sewerage etc. and on external trunk services etc. and the increase in the rate of the development cost of the land, the cost of the houses in the Scheme has gone up during the period 1985 to 1988. In paragraph 6 of the same it is stated that it was well known to the petitioners that the cost announced was approximate and tentative and subject to revision on completion of the constructions. In paragraph 7 of the same it is stated that the Scheme in question is financed by the HUDCO and interest is being paid by the answering respondent. Hence it is not possible to forego the interest. In paragraph 8 of the same it is stated that the petitioners before they had applied for registration in the Scheme, had agreed to the absolute right and power for all such changes in the cost. In paragraph 10 of the same it is stated that the authority has to pay interest to the HUDCO. The same is being realized from the allottees in the Scheme and if the petitioners are not willing to get the house at the enhanced cost and are not willing to pay interest thereon, they are at liberty to withdraw their amount and surrender the house. The respondent Authority is prepared to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner with interest thereon if they are not inclined to purchase the houses. In paragraph 19 of the same it is stated that subsequent to the announcement of the proposed Scheme the Government issued an order vide Annexure-CA-1 in which it was directed that an amount equal to 10% of the premium of the land shall be payable in advance on account of Lease Rent for 90 years and accordingly the Lease Rent was demanded from the petitioners. In paragraph 20 of the same it is stated that there can be no final and conclusive cost before completion of constructions. Only approximate cost was announced. Since the HUDCO did not grant interest free loan, interest became chargeable from its allottees and they are liable to pay the same. In our opinion, the initial cost was only tentative and it was well-known to the petitioners that it was subject to revision of prices. Hence they cannot have any grievance in this connection. The respondent authority has stated in the counter-affidavit that if the petitioners did not want to deposit the amount with interest they can get the money back with interest and return the house. Hence the petitioners can have no grievance. In paragraph 29 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that in the brochure it was clearly stated that the Vice Chairman of the answering respondents (G. D. A.) reserves his right to change the terms and conditions. It was also very clearly mentioned in the brochure that the cost announced is approximate subject to change and completion of the constructions as has been done. The petitioners had applied knowing the above facts and therefore, now, they are estopped from challenging the same and to agitate against the increased costs.;