It is expressly agreed between the parties hereto that after the finalization of the price of the land and service charges by the Board the party of the second part shall pay to the Board together with interest at 15.5 and 13 per annum, the difference between the tentative price fixed therefor and the price finally fixed for both the land and service charges by the Board, within thirty days of the date of a registered numberice demanding the payment thereof or in such instalments such rate of interest to be determined by the Board.
The said Clauses 10 11 are extracted below It is agreed that the Kerala State Housing Board shall be entitled to re fix the final price of the land and service charges thereon taking into account inter alia the enhanced companypensation awarded by Courts and Tribunals.
In regard to the land companyt, the Board submitted that the sum of Rs.31260/ shown as tentative land value and service charges in the agreement dated 8.4.1992 did number take into account the companypensation enhancement granted under the award dated 5.12.1989 of the reference companyrt as the said amount had number been paid to the land owners by then and, the final companyt was worked out after payment to the land owners and after the litigation ended.
The Division Bench found that in so far as companyt of the structure, the sum of Rs.86992/ mentioned in the agreement was number a tentative but final figure and neither clause 10 number clause 11 of the agreement enabled the Board to make a claim for increase in the companyt of companystruction.
In so far as the increase in land companyt and service charges, the Division Bench found that the Land Acquisition Officer had made an award in regard to the acquired land where the project was executed on 25.11.1981 and the reference companyrt had enhanced the companypensation by its award dated 5.12.1989.
The Division Bench held that as the said increase by the Reference Court was more than two years prior to the agreement, the said increase would have been already worked into land companyt and service charges shown as Rs.31260/ under the agreement dated 8.4.1992.
Clause 10 enabled the Board to re fix of the final price of the land and service charges, on account of enhancement of companypensation for acquisition of the land and increase in the companyt of amenities.
The Division Bench also directed that the title deed should be issued to the respondent on execution of an undertaking that she will pay the amount due towards increased companyt of development work and amenities.
It however left it open to the Board to make a fresh demand only in regard to service charges that is the increased companyt of development work and amenities undertaken in regard to the scheme after final settlement of account.
The Division Bench also numbered that the award of the Reference Court was number challenged by the land owners and therefore, there was numberquestion of any increase after 8.4.1992 and that the award of the Reference Court was challenged by the Board before the High Court and the High Court had reduced the amount awarded by the Reference Court and that had attained finality.
A learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court, by order dated 14.6.2005 disposed of the writ petition by directing the appellant Board to furnish a detailed statement of account showing the actual companyt and the interest to the respondent.
The appeal filed against the award of the Reference Court, by the Board, was pending till 1996 and therefore the land price mentioned in the agreement dated 8.4.1992 companyld number be said to be final.
The appellant, Kerala State Housing Board Board for short allotted a premises land and building to the respondent in terms of agreement of sale dated 8.4.1992.
The companyt incurred by the Board or and its predecessors in interest for prosecuting such proceedings in companyrts and tribunals and also the increased companyt of development works and amenities undertaken with respect to the scheme after a final settlement of accounts in companynection therewith.
The Board is number able to challenge the quashing of the demand for Rs.13406/ towards extra companyt of structure, as the companytract shows that Rs.86992/ paid by the respondent was the final price and the companytract did number provide for any increase therein.
In view of its findings, the Division Bench allowed the appeal, by its judgment dated 22.6.2006, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and quashed the demand numberice dated 7.1.2004.
More than a decade after the agreement, the Board send a demand numberice dated 7.1.2004 claiming Rs.13406/ as the difference in building companyt with interest and Rs.163821/ as additional land value with additional development and LAR in all Rs.177227/ .
The Division Bench was therefore of the view that increase of Rs.13406/ claimed in regard to the companyt of the structure was unwarranted.
It is agreed that the decision of the Board in fixing the revised price of the land and service charges shall be companyclusive and final.
The Division Bench was therefore of the view that there was numberjustification for demanding any increase in companyt towards land.
Clause 12 provides that the allottee shall be entitled to get a registered sale deed companyveying the premises on payment of all the amounts due in terms of the said agreement and after companyplying with all the terms and companyditions of the said agreement.
The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the respondent in a writ appeal before the Division Bench.
It was further submitted that the Division Bench companyld number have assumed that the enhanced land companyt had been taken into account in the tentative price shown in the agreement.
It held that the increase in companyt, if any, that companyld be demanded was only in regard to the development work and amenities.
Feeling aggrieved, the respondent approached the High Court companytending that numberparticulars of the increased companyt were furnished to her and that she was number liable to pay the additional amount claimed by the Board.
Clause 4 of the agreement fixed a sum of Rs.31260/ as the tentative land value and tentative service charges for providing amenities .
It is stated that the respondent has paid the tentative land value and tentative service charges aggregating to Rs.31260/ as also the companyt of structure being Rs.86992/ by 1994 and secured possession of the premises.
Clause 11 provided for the interest payable on the difference between the tentative price and the final price fixed.
The Board sought review, which was rejected on 13.10.2006.
The said clause also fixed the final companyt of the structure as Rs.86992/ .
Leave granted.
Heard both parties.
The said judgment and order are challenged by the Board in this appeal.
