Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana 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
    03 July 2026 2:55 PM
Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court
  • by sayum
    03 July 2026 2:55 PM
NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court
  • by sayum
    03 July 2026 2:55 PM
Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court
  • by sayum
    03 July 2026 2:54 PM
Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC
  • by sayum
    03 July 2026 10:58 AM
Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court
  • by sayum
    03 July 2026 10:58 AM
Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court