JUDGMENT
A.P. Ravani, J.
1. The petitioner is a Housing Co-operative Society named Taluka Panchayat Servant Co-operative Housing Society Limited. The petitioner challenges the fixation of price of land allotted to it. The land in question is situated within the urban agglomeration area of Ahmedabad and it forms part of Survey No. 47(C)(P) of Thaltej. The price of the land has been fixed at the rate of Rs. 28 per sq. yd. This is challenged inter alia on the ground that the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity of being heard before fixing the price and that the same is unreasonable and arbitrary. The land was allotted to the petitioner-Society by the Collector, Ahmedabad City, as per order dated February 22, 1974. In the order it has been specifically mentioned that the amount of the price of the land shall be payable by the Society as may be prevailing on the date of the order. It is also mentioned in the order that the price shall be determined by the Consulting Surveyor to the State of Gujarat and that the amount shall be paid with 6 per cent simple interest from the date of determination of the price by the Consulting Surveyor to the State of Gujarat. By the aforesaid order dated February 22, 1974 two different societies were allotted land out of the same percol of land. The Consulting Surveyor to the State of Gujarat has fixed the price of Rs. 28 per sq. yd. in respect of both these pieces of land. After the order dated February 22, 1974, was passed by the Collector, the petitioner has acted upon the order. It has taken possession of the land pursuant to the order of allotment. It has also put up construction on the land. The petitioner knew that it would be required to pay the price as may be fixed by the Consulting Surveyor to the State of Gujarat. The petitioner also knew that it would be required to pay the amount of price together with interest from the date of determination of the price by the Consulting Surveyor. It is not mentioned in the order of allotment that the price shall be fixed by the Consulting Surveyor after hearing the petitioner. If the petitioner thought that before fixation of the price the petitioner should be granted an opportunity of being heard, the petitioner ought not to have acted upon the order. The petitioner ought not to have taken possession of the land pursuant to the order of allotment and the petitioner ought not to have put up construction on the land. Before doing all these things the petitioner ought to have asked for clarification from the respondent-collector. However, the petitioner took advantage of the order. Thereafter the petitioner-Society has taken the contention that the price has been fixed without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and that price fixed is abnormally high having regard to the fact that in the vicinity of the land allotted to the petitioner, other land has been disposed of at a lower price.
2. Extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised so as to help a party who has taken advantage under the impugned order and thereafter seeks to avoid the liability arising under the order. When the petitioner-Society was allotted land it know that the price has to be fixed subsequently and no opportunity of being heard would be afforded to the petitioner. Therefore, if the petition is entertained at the instance of the petitioner-society, it would amount to encouraging futile and frivolous litigation. Such a course cannot be adopted while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner having taken advantage of the order now cannot be permitted to challenge apart of that order and avoid the liability arising under the order. On this short ground alone the petition is liable to be rejected.
3. On merits also it appears that prima facie the price fixed by the Consulting Surveyor to the State of Gujarat cannot be said to be in any way unreasonable or arbitrary. In respect of the adjoining land which has been given to another society, the price fixed is Rs. 28 per sq. yd. i.e. the same price. The contention that the adjoining land has been allotted to a society of which the members belong to Class-I servants is irrelevant. It is not the status of the members of the society that determines the price of the land. The price of the land depends upon the location of the land and various other factors, but certainly not on the ground as to whom it is allotted or it is to be allotted. If Class-Ill servants and persons belonging to backward class community wish to reside in a posh locality nearby the land occupied by Class-I servants they must pay the price for the same. In the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the price fixed is arbitrary and/or unreasonable. The petitioner challenged the fixation of the price before the authorities exercising powers under the Bombay Land Revenue Code and the petitioner has failed. These orders are produced at annexure B and C to the petition. The orders passed by the respondent-authorities are eminently just and proper and the same do not require to be interfered within a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
4. The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was not aforesaid an opportunity of being heard about the fixation of the price has also no merits, when in the allotment letter it has not been mentioned that the price shall be fixed after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. This is a case of sale of land belonging to the Government. There is no vested right in the petitioner to purchase the land at a particular price. Therefore, no question of affording an opportunity of being heard arises while determining the price.
5. The contention that the petitioner was made to pay interest because the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard has also no merits. The petitioner knew from the very beginning that the petitioner was required to pay simple interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of determination of the price by the Consulting Surveyor. This is so mentioned in the allotment order. By late payment of the amount of price the petitioner has stood to gain because the petitioner was required to pay simple interest at the rate of 6 per cent only and not at the market rate of interest. Thus the petitioner has not been put to any disadvantage at all.
There is no substance in the petition. Hence the petition is rejected.