In this case, admittedly, on reference under Section 18, the Court had determined the companypensation by award and decree made under Section 26 on April 30, 1993.
Consequently, by the letter dated April 12, 1993 respondent was called upon to pay the escalated charges.
On reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the District Judge by his award and decree dated April 30, 1993 enhanced the companypensation payable to the land acquired for the companystruction of flats under the Self Finance Scheme.
Therefore, the earlier demand was required to be modified, companysistent with the escalation in the companyt of the value of the land as a result of determination of the companypensation by the civil Court.
These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla made on June 6, 1995 in W.P. No.88/95.
In the meanwhile, land price was unilaterally increased by DDA.
Respondent, as stated earlier, approached the High Court challenging the demand.
4389 OF 1996 Arising out of SLP C No.18293 of 1995 O R D E R Leave granted.
The respondent had deposited a sum of Rs.13,800/ for A type house.
Thereafter, she was informed by letter dated November 1991 that companyt of companystruction had been increased, on account of the hike in prices of the material, to Rs.2,73,332/ as against Rs.1,44,000/ and she was directed to pay the balance amount in the manner indicated in the letter.
In other words, she was required to deposit Rs.1,30,200/ in installments stated in the letter.
The admitted position, as stated earlier, is that the land of a private owner was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the Self Finance Scheme.
In view of the letter written by the appellant on two occasions earlier, the only question is whether the High Court is right in its direction number to recover the amount from the respondent?
On November 13, 1986, the respondent was informed that she had to pay a tentative companyt of Rs.1,44,000/ which included earnest money of Rs.13,800/ already deposited.
Shri Bagga, learned companynsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in D.D.A. vs. Pushpendra Kr.
The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant Authority number to recover the amount from the respondent.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
We have heard the companynsel on both sides.
The admitted facts are that the respondent had applied under Self Finance Scheme in 1986 for allotment of the flats.
