Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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