Summary
The development authority could not demand additional plot price for enhanced land-acquisition compensation where the allotment and lease-cum-sale terms contained no clause authorising that recovery. The reference to tentative value, read in context, permitted adjustment for changed plot dimensions. Decisions enforcing express escalation clauses did not support the demand. The allottees’ relief was upheld.
Issues
- Whether the allotment and lease-cum-sale terms authorised additional price for enhanced acquisition compensation.
- Whether decisions enforcing escalation clauses applied to these agreements.
Held
- Clause 5 had to be read as a whole. It allowed proportionate price variation for actual plot measurements and did not authorise escalation on account of enhanced compensation for the land used to carve out the plots. The word indicating tentative value did not supply that missing authority. (¶¶ 11, 20)
- The lease-cum-sale agreement referred to a negotiated price. Although the numerical consideration was not repeated there, the price stated in the allotment letter formed part of the agreement; its wording did not independently authorise the disputed additional demand. (¶ 21)
- The cited decisions depended on their particular contractual or statutory provisions, including express enhanced-compensation clauses. They did not establish an unrestricted power to revise every allotment price. (¶ 12-19)
- The three appeals before the Court failed. Any fresh litigation by other allottees who had already deposited the additional amount would have to be assessed for delay, laches and acquiescence. (¶¶ 1, 22)
Result
Appeals dismissed; the High Court’s relief against the additional demands was upheld, subject to the stated qualification for fresh claims by other allottees.