Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

KM. PREETA SINGH ETC versus HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.

Decided
22 April 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 621 · 1996 INSC 563
Also cited as
  • (1996) 8 SCC 756 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Delay condoned. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petition.

p. 621, margin F

The question that arises for consideration is : whether the respondents have committed any illegality in directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. l lakh and odd as additional amount as intimated in their calculation memo dated August 9, 1990? The claim of the appellants is that the respondents have no power to direct payment of the additional amount when the appellants have already paid as per the original demand. It is true that initially, the provisional amount was calculated at the rate of cost incurred in the scheme known as the Haryana Urban Development Housing Scheme in Sector 21, Gurgaon. Thereafter, the appeJlants were called upon to pay the additional amount. The contention is that the respondents have got no power to call upon the appellants to pay the additional amount.

pp. 621–622, margin F

Section 2(aa) of the Punjab Urban Estates (Sale of Siles) Rules, 1965 defines "additional price" to mean such sum of money as may be determined by the State Government, in respect of the sale of a site by allotment, having regard to the amount of compensation by which the compensation awarded by the Collector for the land acquired by the State Government of which the site sold forms a part, is enhanced by the court on a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the amount of cost incurred by the State Government in respect of such reference.

p. 622, margin A

Explanation cm;sagcs that "for the purposes of this clause and sub-rule (l) of Rule 4, the expression "the court" means the court as defined in Clames ( d) of Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and where an appeal is filed, the appellate court."

p. 622, margin C

'Sale price' has been absorbed in Rule 4.

p. 622, margin D

A conjoint reading of the above rules would clearly indicate that the allottee is liable to pay a sale price including the additional price and the cost incurred and also the cost of improvement of the sites. It is to be remembered Lhat the respondent-HUDA is only a statutory body for catering to the housing requirement of the persons eligible to claim for allotment. They dCquire the land, develop it and construct buildings and allot the buildings or the sites, as the case may be. Under these circumstances, the entire expenditure incurred in connection with the acquisition of the land and develupment thereon is required to be borne by the allottees \vhcn th~ sites or the buildings sold after the development are offered on the date of the sale in a<.:cunJance \Vith thr; regulation~ and abo condition~ of ~ale-". It is s1;en that in the notice dated r'\ugust 9, 1990 the total area, .net .irca, the payable amount for the gross acreage, the acreage left for the devdupmental purpose, balance recoverable from the plot holders, plottable area have been given for each of the area and recovery rate also has been mentioned under the said notice. Under these c1rcumstances, there is no ambiguity left in the calculations. If, at all, the appellants had got any doubt, they would have approached the authority and sought for further

p. 622, margin D

PREETASINGHv. H.U.DA 623 information. It is not the case that they had sought the information um! the same was withheld. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the action taken by the respondents. The High Court, therefore, was right in refusing to interfere with the order.

p. 623

The appeals are dismissed. No costs. G.N. Appeals dismissed.

p. 623, margin A