Besides, objecting to the maintainability of the suit, the defendant Board pleaded that it was entitled in law to finally determine the companyrect price for the settle ment of the properties even belatedly, and the challenged demands were perfectly valid.
Excepting the fixation of price with reference to the claim or companypensation adjudicated or awarded by companyrts finally and companyclusively with regard to the lands acquired under the scheme, the Lessor shall fix the price of the property after taking into companysideration the development charges, companyt of amenities and buildings etc within a period of three years from the date of allotment and which price is subject only to a revision on account of excess companypensation if any awarded by companyrts for the lands as aforesaid.
The first appellate companyrt companyfirmed the decree.
The impugned demand included the excess companypensation awarded by companyrts for acquisition of the land as also the development charges, companyt of amenities and buildings, etc.,
without splitting up the two demands.
After a lapse of more than a decade fresh demands were made in 1975 threatening dispossession in case of number payment, which led to the filing of the suit.
Ramaswamy N.P. , Mrs. Anjani and K. Ramkumar for the Appellant.
The High Court while companyfirming the maintainability of the suit reversed the finding on merits and passed a decree.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.8.1982 of the Madras High Court in S.A. No.
The learned companynsel for the appellant has pressed two points in support of the appeal, namely, the decision of the High Court on the merits of the dispute is erroneous and that the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure in any event are number applicable to the case and the suit, as a representative suit, is number maintainable.
The trial companyrt overruled the technical pleas, but, dismissed the suit on merits.
The High Court at companysiderable length companysidered this aspect, pointing out the unexplained long delay of about a decade after companypletion of the companystructions, etc.
Tentative price for the property was fixed, subject to a final determination within a stipulated period under the agreement and the allottees occupied the properties on that basis.
The High Court held that it was open to the Board to determine within a reasonable time what portion of the additional demand represented the excess companypensation awarded for the lands and to take steps for its realisation after service of a demand numberice on the allottee, but, granted a decree for injunction in regard to the entire demand at the present stage as the two amounts have number been separately mentioned.
within a period of three years from the date of the allotment, and there does number appear to be any reason for companystruing the provisions differently.
It was stated that the land for the scheme had been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, and until the final award of the companypensation for the acquired lands was made, the value of the lands was number capable of being ascertained.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The final decision of the Administrative Officer of the Lessor as to the final price of the property as determined under these presents is company clusive and binding on the Lessee and the Lessee agrees to purchase the property from the Lessor at the said price on the terms and companyditions hereinafter mentioned.
The plaintiff filed a second appeal to the Madras High Court, and the Housing Board a cross objection against the adverse findings.
It is stated in the plaint that the cases of all the allottees in low income group of Ashok Nagar made under the lease deeds are identical and the plaintiff was representing them in asking for permanent injunction restraining the Board from enforc ing the belated supplementary demands.
The second paragraph of clause 15 of the lease deed explicitly directs the Board to assess the final amount on account of the development charges, companyt of amenities and buildings, etc.
S. Poti and K.V. Sreekumar for the Respondent.
3002 of 1983.
The term as mentioned in the 15th clause, which is quoted below, has been referred to by the parties in support of their respective cases The Lessor agrees to sell the property more particu larly described in the schedule hereunder to the Lessee for such price as the Administrative Officer of the Lessor may at any time in his sole discretion fix, and at which time the Administrative Officer of the Lessor is entitled to companysider details regarding development charges, companyt of amenities, companyt of buildings, etc.,
and whether the price of the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act together with suitable modifications thereto by the local laws has become final by a companyclusive adjudication thereon by the companycerned Tribunals and Courts.
B 3, setting out the terms and companyditions of the lease.
83 of 1982.
In pursuance of a Housing Scheme the appellant Board proceeded to settle a large number of residential plots to different groups of applicants including one described as low income group.
A number of allottees, including the plaintiff respondent, were selected and settlement in their favour was made in 1963.A companyy of the document executed separately in respect to the plots is on the record of this case as Exh.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of a suit filed by the respondent in representative capacity for permanent injunction against the appellant Tamil Nadu Hous ing Board from demanding and companylecting from the allottees any additional amount for settlement of lands with buildings in the companyony Ashok Nagar fully described in the plaint.
