KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SMT. SHEELA DEVI AND ORS. ETC

KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SMT. SHEELA DEVI AND ORS. ETC

For no fault of the Respondents, the Kanpur Development Authority cannot arbitrarily enhance the price of MIG flats beyond the 10% escalation limit stated in the brochure and must fix the final cost as on the date of completion of construction. The Authority's delay does not justify increasing costs, and the High Court correctly directed possession to be given at the original brochure price.

Parties
Appellant: Kanpur Development Authority; Respondents: Smt. Sheela Devi and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Order of Allahabad High Court in Writ Petitions
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Housing Schemes, Allotment of Flats, Escalation of Cost, Contractual Interpretation, Delay in Possession
Administrative Law Property Law Housing Schemes Allotment of Flats Escalation of Cost Contractual Interpretation Delay in Possession

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kanpur Development Authority

Appellant

Smt. Sheela Devi and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Order of Allahabad High Court in Writ Petitions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether price escalation beyond 10% in MIG housing scheme was permissible
  2. 2 Whether cost of flats should be determined at completion date or possession date
  3. 3 Whether delay in allotment justifies increase in cost

Ratio Decidendi

For no fault of the Respondents, the Kanpur Development Authority cannot arbitrarily enhance the price of MIG flats beyond the 10% escalation limit stated in the brochure and must fix the final cost as on the date of completion of construction. The Authority's delay does not justify increasing costs, and the High Court correctly directed possession to be given at the original brochure price.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • No orders required in I.As. 7-8
  • No order as to costs