Holding

The scheme mandates that land losers pay the normal allotment rate, i.e., the rate fixed when the sector was first floated for sale, and does not require allotment at cost price.

Summary

The appellants' lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the development of a city and HUDA formulated a scheme to allot plots to the land losers at "normal allotment rates". The appellants applied for allotment in 1990 and were later allotted plots, but HUDA charged them the revised 1993 rate instead of the rate advertised when the sector was first floated in 1991. They contended that, as land losers, they were entitled to plots at cost (acquisition cost plus development charges) on a no‑profit‑no‑loss basis. The Supreme Court held that the scheme expressly required payment of the normal allotment rate, which means the rate prevailing at the time the sector was first offered for sale, and that the statute provides only solatium, additional amount and higher interest, not cost‑price allotment. Consequently, HUDA was directed to charge the 1991 rate of Rs.1032 per sq.m (Rs.863 per sq.yd) and the appeal was partly allowed, with costs awarded to the appellants.

Issues considered

Whether HUDA should charge the actual land cost plus development charges (cost price) for plots allotted to land losers, or the market/normal allotment price.
What is the meaning of "normal allotment rate" in the HUDA scheme for allotment to oustees.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 23(1A), s. 23(2), s. 28

Subjects

Land acquisitionAllotment of plotsNormal allotment rateCost priceRehabilitation and resettlementHUDA schemeCompensationSolatium

Judgment

...,.
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 12

A BRIJ MOHAN & ORS.
't--
v.
HARYANA'URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY &·ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2011)
JANUARY 03, 2011
B
[R.V•. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]
11 ~
'r
· Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Land acquisition for
development of a city - Formulation of Scheme by State
c
. Urban Development Authority - Allotment of land to land
/osersloutsees - Rate to be charged in regard to such
•
allotment - Actual land cost plus development charges for the
plots allotted to oustees/land losers or market price/normal
allotment price - Held: The Statute contemplates only
D benefits like so/atium, additional amount and higher rate of -r
interest to the land losers and not allotment of plots at cost
price - State Government or HUDA also does not have any
scheme providing for allotment of plots at actual cost to land
losers - HUDA scheme requires the land loser-allottee to pay
E the normal allotment rates for the plots to be allotted to them
under the scheme - Thus, land owners should be allotted
plots under the scheme at the initial price at which the Layout/
Sector plots were first offered for sale after the acquisition - r
Merely because HUDA delayed the allotment in spite of the
F qpplications of the outsees. and the order of the High Court,
and made the allotments 'only after a contempt petition was
filed, does not mean that the outsees become liable to pay
the allotment price prevailing as on the date of allotment -
HUDA directed to charge for th·e allotted plots only the rate
of Rs. 10321- per sq.m. (or Rs.8631- per sq.yd.) and not the rate • -l..
G
as revised in 1993 ,namely Rs.11221- per sq.yd.

'Normal allotment rate' -- Meaning of.
'
Certain lands belonging to the appellants were
H 12
BRIJ MOHAN v. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT 13
AUTHORITY
acquired for the development of the city. The award was · A
~ passed and thereafter, the possession of the land was ·
taken. The first respondent-State Urban Development-.
Authority formulated a Scheme for allotment of plots to
. land losers/oustees at the. normal. allotment rates. The
. c.laims of the outsees were to be invited before the Sector . s .
was floated for the sale. The first responden_t developed
·:~ a layout f<>r the benefit.of·general ·public in. the acquired
· ' lands and offered the residential plots. in that Sector for
allotmentat the specified rate. 'The appellants were not ·
allotted plots. They filed writ petition seeking dfrectiQn to . c
:the first respondentto allot each ofthem plot developed .
'by the respondents at cost on 'no profit and no loss .·
basis'. Ttie appellants were allotted plots. at the normal
. allotme.nt rate which was being charged from any
. ordinary allottee to whom the plots were allotted in thaf . .
0
~· Sector. The appellants again filed a writ petition seeking
••. direction that tile allo'tment should. be rriade at c~'t plus
.· . developm~ht charges basis al)d not at market. prfoe; The ·\
·writ' petition' as also the appeal were d.ismissed.
Therefore; the 1appeliants file~ the ·instant appeal.
E
'' Partly allowing the appeal, t.he Court

"I ·. _ HELD: 1.1 If there was any statutory provision in the
Land Acq'-'isition Act, 1894 or other scheme, providing for
. allotment at cost price, a land loser could certainly clailn F
allotment in terms of the. scheme. But the Statute
· contempJates only benefits like solatium, 'additional
amou~t and' higher rate of interest to the land losers and '
· ·····not allotment of plots at cost price. Nor does the State
' +Government or HUDA have any scheme providing for G
. , allotment. of plots at actual cost to land losers. [Para 1OJ
.[22·E-G] . .
· 1;2 Where there is a scheme but it does not regulate
the, allotment price, it may be possible for the court· to ·
direct the State Government/Development' Authority to H
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A allot plots to land losers at a reasonable cost, and in
special and extra-ordinary circumstances, it may also
indicate the manner of determining the allotment price.
But where the scheme applicable specifies the price to
be charged for allotment, its terms cannot be ignored. If
B any land loser has any grievance in regard to such
scheme, he may either challenge it or give a
representation for a better or more beneficial scheme. But
he cannot ask the court to ignore the terms of an existing
or prevailing scheme and demand allotment at cost price.
c The scheme of HUDA contemplates allotment of plots
only in terms of the scheme, that is at normal allotment
rates. This benefit is extended in addition to the benefits
under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act, and,
therefore, the scheme provides for allotment at normal
0 allotment rate. Necessarily, the allotment and the price to
be charged, would have to be strictly in accordance with
such HUDA Scheme. In the instant case, the HUDA
scheme requires the land loser-allottee to pay the normal
allotment rates for the plots to be allotted to them under
the scheme. Therefore, a land loser cannot claim
E allotment of a plot at acquisition cost of land plus
development cost or at any other lesser price. [Para 11]
[23-C-F]
Hansraj H. Jain v. State of Maharashtra 1993 (3) SCC
F 634 - distinguished.
2.1 The scheme requires the allottees under the
scheme for land-losers/oustees, to pay the normal
allotment rates for the allotted plots. No doubt, the term
'normal allotment rate' would ordinarily refer to the -1-
G allotment rate prevailing at the time of allotment. In the
instant case, the application for allotment was made in
1990. On 09.09.1991, HUDA advertised the residential
plots in the sectors developed from the acquired rands
for allotment, wherein the allotment rate was shown as
H
BRIJ MOHAN v. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT 15
AUTHORITY
Rs.1032 per sq.m. (Rs.863/- per sq.yd) for plots of 300 sq. A
m. In the year 1993, the allotment price was increased to
-< Rs.1342/- per sq.m. (Rs.1122/- per sq.yd.) and the
appellants are required t9 pay the 1993 price instead of·
paying the rate in vogue when the layout was ready for
allotm.ent. [Para 11] [24-B-G] s
2.2 The policy clearly states that 11 clalms of the
oustees would be Invited before the sector Is floated for
~ sale". This Is also reiterated In the subsequent scheme
dated 19.3.1992. It Is, therefore, evident that the land
loser-applicants for allotment should be given the option C
to buy first, before the applications for allotment are
Invited from the general public. This means that the
prices to be charged would be the rate which Is equal to
the. rate that is fixed when the sector was first floated for
allotment. In the Instant case, when the sector was D
'r floated for sale, the rate that was fixed In regard to plots
of 300 sq.m. or less, was Rs.1032/· per sq. m. (Rs.863/·
per sq.yd). The appellants had made the applications in
1990 and approached the High Court In 1992. There was
even a direction by the High Court to consider their E
applications within a fixed time. The appellants should,
therefore, be allotted plots under the scheme at the Initial
price at which the Layout/Sector plots were first offered
-<: for sale after the acquisition. Merely because HUDA
delayed the allotment In spite of the applications of the F
appellants and the order of the High Court, and made the
allotments only after a contempt petition was filed, does
not mean that the appellants become liable to pay the
allotment price prevailing as on the date of allotment.
Having regard to the terms of the scheme which clearly G
~ requires that the land losers would be invited to apply for
allotment before the sector is floated for sale, it is clear
that the initial price alone should be applied provided the
land losers had applied for allotment at that time. In the
Instant case, such applications were in fact made by the H
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A appellants. Therefore, the respondents could charge for
the allotted plots only the rate of Rs.1032/- per sq.m. (or .,._
.
Rs.863/- per sq.yd.) and not the rate as revised in 1993
namely Rs.1122/- per sq.yd. [Para 12) [24-H; 25-A-G]
2.3 The orders of the Division Bench and the Single
B Judge of the High Court are set aside and the
respondents are directed to charge for the six plots
allotted to the appellants at a price of Rs.1032/· per sq.m.
(or Rs.863/- per sq.yd) instead of Rs. 1342/- per sq.m. Each
of the appellants would be entitled to costs of Rs.2500/-
C from HUDA. [Para 13) [25-H; 26-A·B]
3. The submission that allotment of plots to land
losers should be at actual cost (acquisition cost of land
plus development cost), appears to be reasonable and
0 attractive. That should be the ultimate goal in a changing
scenario favouring acquisitions which are land loser-
friendly. The arguments of the appellant!: do certainly
make out a case for such a scheme to create a better
settlement and rehabilitation policy in regard to land
acquisitions. The State of Haryana is now proposing to
E introduce a more attractive and land-loser friendly
rehabilitation and resettlement policy, which
contemplates allotment of bigger residential/commercial/
industrial plots to land losers and oustees. But that is for
the future. [Para 10) [22-E-H; 23-A-B]
F
Case Law Reference:
1993 (3) sec 634 Distinguished Para 10
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.: 1
G of 2011.
~
· From the Judgment & Order dated 20.05.2009 of the High
. Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in LP.A. No. 220 of
2009.
H Punit Dutt Tyagi for the Appellants.
BRIJ MOHAN v; HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT 17
AUTHORITY
Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sanjay Singh, l)rga Shankar Prasad . A
for the Respondents. · · ·

The Judgment of the Co.urtwas delivered by
. . .

R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
B
2. The first respondent Haryana Urban Devel,opment
Authority (for short HUDA) formulated a Scheme vide Circular
dated 10.9.1987 (as clarified by cirqular dated 9.5.1990) for
allotment of plots to land .losers/oustees at normal allotment
· r~tes. The said 'scheme inter alia provides for aUotment of a C
plot measuring 250 sq. yd. to a landowner whose acquired land
·measures between 500 sq. yd. to one acre. It also provides that
where there are a number of owners in respect of an acquired
land, efforts should be made to accommodate each of them
subject to a limit of one plot of 250 sq. yd., for every acre of .· o
· land acquired. It requires that "claims of the oustees .shall.be··
invited before the sector is floated for sale". A revised policy/
. scheme was introduced by HUDA by circular dated 18.3.1992
which inter alia provided as follows :

"(vi) Allotment of plots to the oustees will be made at the ·. E
allotment rates advertised by the Haryana Urban
Development Authority for that sector Land-owners will be
given compensation for their land which is acquired.

(vii) Claims of the oustees for allotment of plots under this F
policy shall be invited by the Estate.officer, Haryana Urban
development Authority concerned before the sector is
floated for sale."

3. The appellants 1 to 6'\vere the owners of 38 bighas and
3 biswas of land in Hudbust No.1, Kasba Kamal. Their lands G
were acquired for development and utilization of land as
residential and commercial area of Kamal under a preliminary
notification issued in 1989 followed· by final notification issued
in the year 1990. On making the award, possession was taken
· on 19.12:·1990. The appellants made an application to HUDA H
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A for allotment of plots under the aforesaid oustees policy on
28.12.1990.
-
4. HUDA developed a layout (Sector-4 Part-II) for the
benefit of general public in the acquired lands and offered the
B residential plots in that sector for allotment at the rate of
Rs.1032/- per sq. m. (Rs.863/- per sq. yd.) for 300 sq. mtr. plots
and Rs.1135/- per sq. m. for 420 sq.m. plots. As the appellants .,
were not allotted plots, they filed a writ petition (CWP No.2596/
,1992) seeking a direction to HUDA to allot to each of them a
c plot measuring 250 sq.yd. in Sector 4 or 5 which were being
developed by the respondents, at cost on "no profit no loss
basis". The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated
29.7.1992 recording the statement of the respondents that the
case of the appellants was under consideration and they will
0 be allotted plots, with a direction to the respondent to decide
the matter expeditiously preferably within six months. As the
order dated 29.7.1992 was not complied with, the appellants
filed a contempt petition (COCP No.240/1993). Only thereafter,
the second respondent (Estate Officer, HUDA) sent letters of
E allotment dated 13.9.1993 to each of the appellants allotting a
plot measuring 209 sq.m. (250 sq.yd.) at a cost of Rs.280,478/
- which works out to Rs.1342/- per sq.m. (Rs.1122/- per sq;yd.).
In view of the said allotments, the contempt petitions were
disposed of recording the submission that all the appellants
F have been allotted plots.
5. The appellants again approached the High Court by
filing a writ petition (CWP No.12240/1993) contending that the
allotments should be made at cost plus development charges
basis and not at market price. The appellants also sought
G quashing of the demand for payment of a price of Rs.280,478/
• for each of the plots allotted to the appellants. A learned Single
Judge of the High Court by order dated 10.11.2008 dismissed
the writ petition on the grou.nd that the matter was governed by
the policy dated 10.9.1987; that under that policy, the oustees
H • allottees were liable to pay the normal allotment rate, which
· BRIJ MOHAN v. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT 19
AUTHORITY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
meant the prevaiUng rate that was being charged from any A
ordinary allottee to whom plots were allotted in that sector; and
.._j/
that as the allotment rates charged to the appellants were the
same as the allotment rates charged to other alltotees, there
was nothing irregular or illegal in the demand for payment of
Rs,280,474/· as cost of each plot. B
6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal
(Letters Patent Appeal No.220/2009) contending that having
__j regard to·the terms of the Scheme, even If the allotment rate
had to be paid,·that should have been at Rs.863/· per sq.yd.
which was the rate of allotment under the HUDA Advertisement c
dated 9.9.1991. They also contended that' HUDA deliberately
delayed the allotment of plots to appellants and then charged
them a higher allotment rate which came into effect
subsequently. A Division Bench of the High Court by impugned
judgment dated 20.5.2009 dismissed the appeal. The said D
judgment is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
··-r
7. There is no doubt that the appellants were entitled to
allotment o! plots. In fact, each of them has been allotted a plots
(that is plots bearing ·Nos.63. 62, 61, 64. 54 and 53 in sector E
No.4, Part-II), each measuring 209 sq.m. or 250 sq.yd. The only
issue that arises for consideration in this appeal Is about the
rate to be chcsrged in regard to such allotment. On the
-·--< contentions urge~ the following questions arise for our
consideration : F
(i) Whether HUDA should charge only the actual land cost
plus development charges for the plots allotted to oustees/
land losers, and not the market price/normal allotment
price?
G
~- (ii) What is the meaning of the words 'normal allotment
rate' used In the scheme for allotment to oustees?
Re: Question (I)

8. It is submitted by the appellants that the Scheme for H
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R.

A allotment of developed plots was made recognizing the fact that
the oustees lose their lands, and many of them also lose their )<....
place of residence. The appellants therefore contend that the
oustees/land losers whose lands were acquired and who
claimed allotment of plots ander the HUDA's Scheme for
B allotment of plots to oustees, stand on a different footing when
compared to normal applicants for allotment. They relied up'on
the observations of this Court in Hansraj H. Jain v. State of
Maharashtra [1993 (3) SCC 634) in support of their contentions ~.
that the allotments to land losers should be at cost of land plus
c development charg'es. In that case the government of
Maharashtra had evolvec;l a policy to offer alternative plots/sites
to affected land owners. The policy did not however contain any
specific provision relating to price to be charged. This Court
noticed the following arguments addressed on behalf of the
State and the land losers : ·
0
"On the question of price of the alternative site, the learned
Solicitor has submitted that after acquisition the lands in
New Bombay have been vested in CIDCO for
development and disposal. All the costs incurred on the
E development are to be met by disposing the saleable land.
In the process, the Corporation has to spend huge
amounts on development of infrastructure in the form of
roads, water supply, sewerage, electricity, transport etc.
For the purpose of disposal of saleable land, certain lands
F are required to be provided to the social institutions,
project affected persons, economically weaker sections
and lower income group at nominal and subsidized rate
and the shortfall accruing from such subsidized disposal
has to be recovered by the sale of other lands. The
G commercial areas are sold by the Corporation by tender
system and such areas draw much higher rate. The learned
Solicitor has submitted before us that unfortunately the ratio
of such disposal at higher rate in the entire process is
around 1% only. He has, however, submitted that the
H concerned authorities are keen to give relief to the affected
BRIJ MOHAN v. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT 21
AUTHORITY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN. J.]
land owners by charging reasonable price as far as A
practicable. The learned counsel for the appellants have,
however, submitted that although the award for acquiring
land was made at rs.4 per sq. mtr., the developed iands
for alternative sites for building houses for the affected land
owners are being offered @ Rs. 13,200 per sq. mtr." 8
This Court on considering the contentions, held that on the
special facts and circumstances, allotments should be made
to the land losers by charging the cost of acquisition plus actual
cost of development. The relevant observations are extracted
below: c
"We, therefore, direct the concerned authorities to offer the
alternative site as per the scheme framed in 1976 referred
to hereinbefore to the affected land owners on the basis
of the actual cost of development by charging the cost of D
the acquisition and the development charges and no more.
"1--
·Such direction, we feel, is required to be made particularly
in view of the fact that acquisition proceedings had been
pending for a number of years, as a result of which the
amount of compensation for the acquisition being E
referable to the period when notices under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act were issued, became
., insignificant and it is reasonably apprehended that
unless the land by way of alternative site as per the
scheme is offered to the affected land owners at a
F
subsidized rate as indicated hereinbefore, it will not be
possible for the land owners to take such allotment by
paying usual prices intended to be changed from them
and the offer of alternative site will for all practical purposes
be illusory."
. J- . G
(emphasis supplied)

9. Placing strong reliance on the said observations in
Hansraj H. Jain, the appellants contended that the price of plots
allotted was almost as much as the compensation that was H
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

i
'A
I , given to them for the entire acquired area. According to them,
~ an extent of 3836 sq. yds. of land was acquired from each of
appellants 1 to 5 and the compensation awarded to each of ·
them was Rs.302,473/- (slightly more was acquired from sixth
'
I appellant). As against it, each was required to pay Rs.280,478/ .
.e' - for a plot of 250 sq.yds which was almost the entire
compensation they got. They submitted that the compensation
awarded for the acquired land (of about an acre) was less than
the price that was demanded by HUDA for each plot that was
allotted to them; and that If the compensation paid to a land
c loser for an acre of land (less legal and· other expenses) would
be insufficient to buy even a small plot, let alone construct a
house therein, even a scheme for allotment will only be a
mirageror most of the small land holders. They also submitted
that as the allotment of a plot is a part of ttie resettlement and
rehabilitation package given to the land losers, as an incentive 1
0
~o accept the acquisition without protest and co-operate with i
the State Government, the allotment should be at a realistically ·
reasonable cost, that is actual cost of land plus development :
charges.
E 1O. No doubt, the contention that allotment of plots to land .1
losers should be at actual cost (acquisition cost of land plus
development cost), appears to be reasonable and attractive.
That should be the ultimate goal in a changing scenario
favouring acquisitions which are land loser-friendly. The
F arguments of the appellants do certainly make out a case for
such a scheme to create a better settlement and rehabilitation
policy in regard to land acquisitions. If .there was any statutory
provision in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act' for short) or.
other scheme, providing for allotment at cost price, a land loser;
G could certainly claim allotment in terms of the scheme. But the
Statute contemplates only benefits like solatium, additional :
amount and higher rate of interest to the land losers and not l
allotment of plots at cost price. Nor does the State Government ·
or HUDA have any scheme providing for allotment of plots at
H
.•. ·-
BRIJ MOHAN v. HARYANA URBAN -DEVELOPMENT 23
AUTHORITY [R,V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
actual cost to land losers. We are informed that State of A
Haryana is now proposing to introduce a more attractive. and
land-loser friendly rehabilitation and resettlement policy, which
, contemplates allotment of bigger resident:al/commercial/
industrial plots to land losers and oustees. But that is for the
\future. B

- - 1L_Where there is.a.scheme butjt clQes not regulate the
allotment pr-ice, -if maybe-possible for the court to direct the
·State GovernmenUDeve!opment Authority to allot plots to land
losers at a reasonable cost, and in special and extraordinary
, circumstances, it may also indicate the· manner of determining . C
· the allotment price. But where the scheme applicable specifies
· the price to be charged for allotment, its terms cannot be
ignored. If any land loser has any grievance in regard to such
scheme, he may either challenge it or give a representation for
a better or more beneficial scheme. But he cannot ask the court D
. to ignore the terms of an existing or prevailing scheme and
demand allotment -at cost price. The scheme of HUDA
contemplates allotment of plots only in terms of the scheme, that
is at normal allotment rates. This benefit is extended in addition
to the benefits under sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act, E
and therefore the scheme provides for allotment at normal
allotment rate. Necessarily, the allotment and the price to be
charged, will have to be strictly in accordance. with such HUDA
Scheme. ln~this case the HUDA scheme requires the land --- ·
loser-allottee to pay the normal allotment rates for the plots to F ·
be allotted to them under the scheme. Therefore; a land loser ·
cannot claim allotment of a plot at acquisition cost of land plus
development cost or at any other lesser price. The decision in
Hansrajf-1. Jain was a case where the scheme did not provide
l-- for any ali'.ltment price, and the price demanded was G
Rs.13,200/- per ..q.m. as against the compensation of Rs.4 per
sq.m. which in effect was 3300 times the acquisition price. It
was on those peculiar facts and circumstances, this court
thought it fit to direct the respondents therein to adopt the
H
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R.

A acquisition cost plus development cost as the allotment price.
That principle will not apply where there is a specific scheme
which provides the rate of allotment.

Re : Question (ii)
B 11. As noticed above, the scheme requires the allottees.
under the scheme for land-losers/oustees, to pay the normal
allotment rates for the allotted plots. The question is what is
the meaning of the term 'the normal allotment rate'. No doybt, .
the term would ordinarily refer to the allotment rate prev~ilin9:
C at the time of allotment. If an acquisition is fllade in 1$85: and·
the developed layout in the acquired lands is ready for allotment
of plots in 1990, and allotments are made i.n the years 1990. ·
1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 at annually fricreasing-ratP.s, ·.
a land- loser who is allotted a plot in 1990 wil~ natvrally be ~ ·
D charged a lesser price. But if his application is kept pendi~g
by the Development Authority for whatsoever reason and if the. ,
allotment is made in 1992, he may have to pay a htgher .Price;
and if the allotment is IT'lade in 1995 he may have to.pay.arnuqh
higher price. The question is whether ;my discriminatiO'rl should
E be permitted depending upon the whims, fancies an·d delays
on the part of the authority in making allotments. To take this
case itself, the application for allotment was made in.1990. On·
9.9.1991, H\JDA-advertised the residential plots in the sectors ·
· developed from the acquired lands for allotment, wher~in the · · ·
F allotment -rate was shown as Rs.1032 per sq.m. (Rs.863/- per .
sq.yd) for plots of 300 sq. m. In the year 1993, the allotment ·· ·
price was increased to Rs.13421:; per sq',m: '(Rs.1122/~ per
sq.yd.) and the appellants are required to pay the 1993· price
instead. of paying the rate in vogue when the l.aYPUt was ready
G for allotment. Should the land loser who promptly)nade .the··
application in 1990 be made to suffer, because of the ina~tion ..
on'the part of HUDA in making the allotment?.'We get' the ·
answer in the HUDA scheme itself:' ·

12. The. policy clearly states that "claims CJ.ft4he oustees' ·
. "<..
H
• •• ~· "T"-

BRIJ MOHAN v. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT "IC

AUTHORITY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

_.f,
shall be invited before the sector is floated for sale". This Is also A
reiterated in the subsequent scheme dated 19.3.1992' which
provides that "claims of the oustees for allotment of plots under
thi$ policy shall be invited by the Estate Officer, HUDA
concerned, before the sector is floated for sale". It is therefore
evident that the land loser-applicants for allotment should be 8
given the option to buy first, before the applications for allotment
are invited from the general pubJic. This means that the prices
~
.. to be charged wi!I be the rate which is equal to the rate that is
· fixed when the sector was first floated for allotment. In this case,
: it is not in doubt that when the sector was floated for sale, the c
rate that was fixed in regard to plots of 300 sq.m. or less, was
___, Rs.1032/- per sq. m. (Rs.863/- per sq.yd). The appellants had
• made the applications in 1990 and approached the High Court
; in 1992. There was even a direction by the High Court to
: consider their applications within a fixed time. The appellants D
...... should therefore be allotted plots under the scheme at the initial
A price at which the Layout/Sector plots were first offered for sale
after the acquisition. Merely because HUDA delayed the .
allotment in spite of the applications of the appellants and the
order of the High Court, and made the allotments only after a
E
contempt petition was filed, does not mean that the appellants
become liable to pay the allotment price prevailing as on the
date of allotment. Having regard to the terms of the scheme
"' which clearly requires that the land losers shall be invited to
apply for allotment before the sector is floated for sale, it is clear
that the initial price alone should be applied provided the land F
losers had applied for allotment at that time. In this case such
applications were in fact m~de by the appellants. We are
therefore of the view that the respondents could charge for the
allotted clots only the rate of Rs.1032/- per sq.m. (or Rs.863/-
J- per sq.yd.; ?.nd not the rate as revised in 1993 namely Rs.1122/ G
- per·sq.yd.

13. We therefore allow this appeal in part and set aside
the orders of the division bench and the learned Single Judge
H
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A of the High Court and direct the respondents to charge for the >-
six plots allotted to the appellants at a price of Rs.1032/- per
sq.m. (or Rs.863/- per sq.yd) instead of Rs. 1342/" per sq.m.
Each of the appellants will be entitled to costs of Rs.2500/- fro.m
HUDA.
8
N.J. Appeal partly allowed.

'