This order shall dispose of Revision Petition Nos. 872, 873, 874, 875, 876 & 877 of 2006 as the facts and law point involved in these cases are the same.

 Housing Board, Haryana, which was opposite party before the District Forum, has filed the present revision petitions.

Complainants/respondents’ case was that they applied for allotment of Type 1 category tenements in Baldev Nagar, Ambala City after going through the terms and conditions of the allotment of house as printed in brochure issued by the petitioner.  They were

-3-

allotted tenements for Rs.4,67,300/- which was termed in the brochure as ‘Tentative Price’.  Complainants received a notice requiring them to pay additional sum of Rs.2,73,820/- on account of ‘Enhanced Land Compensation’.  Taking the plea that the petitioner could not demand the additional price legally, complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum.  Case of the complainants was that after allotment of the houses, there was no enhancement of the compensation for the land acquired.

District Forum after going through the complaint, written version as well as the evidence led by the parties, allowed the complaint and quashed the demand made by the petitioner and directed the petitioner not to charge the additional amount and if already charged, to refund the same to the complainants within two months, failing which interest @ 9% p.a. was to be paid on the said amount.  Rs.500/- were awarded as costs to each of the complainants.

Being aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

-4-

Counsel for the petitioner contends that in the letter of allotment, price given was ‘Tentative’ and the petitioner was within its right to claim enhanced amount of compensation.  Note appended to the brochure reads as under:

-5-

Note : 1.           The price mentioned above has been worked out on the basis of rough cost estimates.  The price is tentative and subject to revision.  After the construction of Houses at the time of allotment the price will be worked out and Houses will be allotted on the said price which is further subject to finalization.  The enhanced compensation of land on which Houses will be constructed, arbitration awards as and when granted by the courts and any enhancement in cost of land on any account shall be payable by the allotees.  The Board reserves the right to increase the amount of installments, reduce the period of recovery and make modification in the plot area and plinth area etc.

2.                  The rate of interest is subject to revision by the Financing institution (s) at the time of release of funds by them.

3.                  10% of the cost of land which will be worked out at the time of allotment of houses subsequent increase/decrease in the cost of Land on any account.”   

(Emphasis Supplied)

It is not disputed before us that the additional amount claimed by the petitioner was towards enhancement of compensation for the  land acquired.  This fact is evident from Annexure P-4 at page 47 of the paper book in which it is stated that the demand is because of ‘ELC’ @ 1804-58 per sq. meter.  ‘ELC’ stands for Enhanced Land Compensation.  State Commission dismissed the appeal by observing that petitioner had failed to produce any evidence by way of Award of the Land Acquisition Officer either prior to or subsequent

-6-

to the allotment enhancing the amount of compensation for the land acquired.  The State Commission relied upon a judgment of this Commission in “Sanjay Gera Vs. HUDA & ANR. 2005 (3) SCC  207”.  Aggrieved against the order passed by the State Commission, present revision petitions have been filed.

According to counsel for the petitioner, in view of the Note appended in the brochure and the Agreement entered into between the parties, the price was ‘Tentative’ and the petitioner could legally demand enhanced amount while fixing the final price.  According to him, even in the Agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondents, it was stated that the price fixed is ‘Tentative’ and the Housing Board will have the right to increase the price subsequently.

Petitioner had demanded increased price because of enhancement in the land compensation.  Had the petitioner claimed the enhanced amount on account of increased cost of construction, then the petitioner would have been within its right to claim the enhanced amount.  Even because of increase in the compensation

-7-

for acquisition of land, petitioner would have been within its right to claim the enhanced amount of compensation provided there was an actual enhancement by the court for acquisition of land.  Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sanjay Gera’s case supra has held as under:-

“As par the condition contained in the letter of allotment, enhancement could be made on the cost of the land as per the award by the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act.  But no such award was given by the Land Acquisition Authority. In a suit duty is cast no the defendants to lead evidence to show that increase on the cost of the land is necessitated Because of enhancement of paying higher rate of compensation to the Animal Husbandry Department, as claimed.  It was incumbent on the part of the Haryana Unban Development Authority to substantiate the same by leading proper evidence that the enhancement was effected on  account of increase in the price of acquisition of land.  But the only evidence which has been led by the defendant –respondents is significantly silent on this issue.  In civil matters, the rights of the parties cannot be determined just on the basis of any other judgment on questions of fact.  It is the duty of the defendants to specifically plead and prove their case by leading proper evidence in the matter.  As per the evidence led by the defendant-respondent i.e. the documentary evidence as well as

-8-

the oral evidence, the allegations made by the defendants are  not substantiated.  Therefore, the trial court was justified in taking a decision against the defendant and issuing an injunction as prayed for.

In the present case, there is no evidence, whatsoever, to show that there was any enhancement in the land compensation either prior to or subsequent to the allotment of the houses to the respondents.  The demand was created on the basis of enhancement of compensation in acquisition of land.  In view of the note contained in the brochure and the agreement entered between the parties, the Housing Board could increase the price but since enhanced amount was claimed on account of increase in the land compensation, the petitioner was bound to support its contention which it has failed to do.  We are conscious of the fact that pricing is not a consumer dispute and would not fall within the jurisdiction of consumer forums,   but in the present case, the dispute is not Pricing.  The dispute is regarding the illegal demand of enhanced amount due to increase in compensation for the land acquired which remains unsubstantiated. 

-9-

Petitioner being State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, has to act in a fair manner.  Since there was no increase in compensation for acquiring the land, the petitioner could not have demanded the increased amount. 

In view of the above, we see no merit in the revision petition.  Dismissed.  No costs.