Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the public corporation’s revised land-price demand after an allottee changed the proposed use from information technology to a hotel. The initial price was tentative, and the agreement required payment of the prevailing plot rate for the change. An erroneous earlier demand and internal response to an audit objection could not override the Board’s decision. The High Court judgments were set aside and the allottee’s writ petition dismissed.
Issues
- Whether the allottee could insist on conveyance at the tentative price after changing the land use.
- Whether an earlier erroneous demand and audit correspondence prevented recovery at the Board-approved rate.
- Whether the delay in the corporation’s intra-court appeal should have been condoned.
Provisions considered
- Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963The delay of 459 days, arising from pursuit of reviews and appeals, was satisfactorily explained on these facts and should have been condoned. The Court expressly did not extend Section 14 relief. (¶ 25)
Held
- The allotment and lease terms made the original land price tentative and the subsequently fixed price binding. The specific change-of-product clause required payment of the prevailing plot rate. Changing from an IT industry to hospitality constituted a fresh transaction attracting the Board-approved rate fixed before the application for that change. (¶¶ 17, 24, 26, 27)
- The earlier conversion demand and the corporation’s attempted justification to auditors were mistakes inconsistent with the Board decision. Staff and officers could not override that decision, and a bona fide mistake could be corrected. The Court sustained the prevailing rate with the commercial-use addition; other similarly situated allottees had paid the revised rate. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23)
- On the particular litigation history, the intra-court appeal delay was satisfactorily explained and should have been condoned under Section 5. The precedents concerning repetitive or abusive proceedings did not govern these facts, and Section 14 was not the basis of relief. (¶ 25)
- The demand dated 25 July 2012 was valid and payable. The allottee was not entitled to a direction for conveyance on the basis of the tentative price. (¶¶ 24, 26, 27, 28)
Result
Appeal allowed. The Single Judge and Division Bench judgments were set aside, and the allottee’s writ petition dismissed. The revised demand dated 25 July 2012 was upheld.