Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

Supreme Court dismisses Belgaum Urban Development Authority's appeal over demand of additional price for allotted plots

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin

The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment, has dismissed the appeal filed by the Belgaum Urban Development Authority (BUDA) challenging the demand of additional price for plots allotted to respondents in the case of Dhruva & Anr. v. Belgaum Urban Development Authority. The judgment, delivered by Justice Rajesh Bindal, resolved a bunch of appeals arising from the common judgment of the High Court in R.S.A. Nos. 759, 760, and 864 of 2008.

The dispute centered around the demand of additional price by BUDA from the respondents, who were allotted residential plots. BUDA claimed that the demand was justified due to the enhancement of compensation for the land on which the plots were carved out. However, the respondents argued that there were no specific clauses in the allotment letter or the lease-cum-sale agreement allowing BUDA to demand additional price except for variations in plot size.

After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the Supreme Court analyzed relevant case law, including the judgments in Ishwar Dass Nassa v. State of Haryana and Preeta Singh (Km) v. Haryana Urban Development Authority. The court observed that the clauses in the allotment letter and the lease-cum-sale agreement did not explicitly authorize BUDA to demand additional price on the grounds of enhanced compensation for land acquisition.

Justice Rajesh Bindal, in the judgment, held that the demand made by BUDA for additional price was not justified based on the clauses in the agreements. The court concluded that the allottees were not liable to pay the additional price demanded by BUDA.

Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by BUDA, upholding the judgment of the High Court. The court clarified that any future litigation initiated by other allottees who had already paid the additional price would be considered, taking into account the delay, laches, and principles of acquiescence.

Dhruva & Anr. v. Belgaum Urban Development Authority

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/28-Apr-2023-BELGAUM-URBAN-DEVELOPMENT-AUTHORITY-Vs-Dhruva.pdf"]

 

Latest Legal News

  • by sayum
    12 June 2026 1:57 PM
Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court
  • by sayum
    12 June 2026 1:55 PM
138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court
  • by sayum
    12 June 2026 1:51 PM
Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court
  • by sayum
    12 June 2026 12:50 PM
Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court
  • by sayum
    12 June 2026 12:48 PM
Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court
  • by sayum
    12 June 2026 10:38 AM
Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court