Summary
The Court upheld cancellation of HUDA’s additional-price demand because the allotment clause permitted enhancement only for increased land-acquisition compensation, whereas this land had been transferred between authorities without acquisition. Continuing litigation despite a directly applicable Supreme Court judgment warranted costs of Rs 1 lakh to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre and Rs 50,000 to the allottee, with recovery from responsible officers and calculation and recovery of litigation expenditure.
Issues
- Whether an interdepartmental land-transfer price increase satisfied the allotment clause authorising an additional-price demand.
- What costs and accountability directions were warranted for pursuing litigation despite binding precedent.
Held
- Clause 9 made the allotment price tentative only to the extent of enhanced land cost awarded by the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act. The land had never been acquired; it was transferred from the Animal Husbandry Department. Revision of that transfer price therefore did not satisfy the contractual trigger for an additional demand. (¶¶ 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13)
- Sanjay Gera concerned a plot in the same sector and the same additional-price basis and allotment condition. The transfer-price letter relied upon had already been considered there. The concurrent decisions setting aside this demand disclosed no illegality. (¶¶ 13, 17, 18, 19, 20)
- The authority continued contesting and appealing after the governing Supreme Court judgment was delivered, wasting judicial time and forcing the allottee through unnecessary litigation over an unjustified Rs 26,880 demand. The Court condemned such impersonal decision-making and use of appeals to avoid administrative responsibility. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23)
- Costs of Rs 1 lakh were directed to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre and Rs 50,000 to the respondent, with both amounts recoverable from the guilty officers or officials who recommended appeals despite the binding judgment. Litigation expenditure, including counsel and related official travel expenses, was also to be calculated and recovered from the responsible officers. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23)
- The appeal was dismissed. The costs were to be deposited and paid within two months, the litigation-cost exercise completed within six months, and an affidavit of compliance filed in the Supreme Court. (¶ 24)
Result
Appeal dismissed. Rs 1 lakh costs to Supreme Court Mediation Centre and Rs 50,000 to respondent within two months; recovery from responsible officers directed. Litigation expenditure to be calculated and recovered within six months; compliance affidavit required.