GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SASIKANTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the respondents in W.P(C) No.26466 of 2020 challenging the judgment of learned Single Judge dtd. 6/10/2021, whereby the writ petition was allowed holding as follows:

(2.) Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: Petitioners applied for a Type-B residence at Edathala Housing Scheme, launched by the Greater Cochin Development Authority, first appellant, which was known as Edathala Housing Scheme-Phase II, for which acquisition was made under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with the Town Planning Act in force. In that course of action, property situated in Re-sy. No.324/12/22/23, in Block No.35 of Aluva East Village, Aluva Taluk was acquired intending to construct houses and to sell such houses for residential accommodation in accordance with the Edathala Housing Scheme Prepared.

(3.) Petitioners were allotted a house under Type-II category. Petitioners paid an advance of Rs.3,00,000.00 towards sale price and the sale price was estimated at Rs.8, 68,525.00, out of which an amount of Rs.7,70,000.00 was towards building cost, and Rs.98,525.00 towards price of the property. Therefore, after adjusting advance payment of Rs.3,00,000.00, the balance sale price of Rs.5,68,525.00 together with interest @ 9% per annum was calculated for repayment in 300 equated monthly installments of Rs.4772.00 each. Accordingly, the agreement regarding repayment was executed by and between the parties in the month of May, 2008 and from 2008 onwards the petitioners along with family are residing in the house and have been paying the installments without any default. The entire amount as per the agreement was paid and the loan account was closed. Therefore, a sale deed has to be executed by the Greater Cochin Development Authority. But, the Greater Cochin Development Authority is insisting on certain conditions including that the property shall not be sold for a period of 10 years, to be incorporated in the sale deed, which according to the petitioners are absolutely illegal.