https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193815 A belated additional demand for development charges, amenities and buildings under the lease was unsustainable because the Board was required to finalise those amounts within three years of allotment and delayed the calculation for about a decade without justification. A separate demand for enhanced land acquisition compensation was permissible. A representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC was maintainable because the allottees shared the same interest and common grievance under the housing scheme, and separate causes of action did not by themselves bar representative proceedings. The challenge to maintainability was rejected and the representative suit was upheld. en-us Wed, 07 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Aug 2017 16:39:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193815 A belated additional demand for development charges, amenities and buildings under the lease was unsustainable because the Board was required to finalise those amounts within three years of allotment and delayed the calculation for about a decade without justification. A separate demand for enhanced land acquisition compensation was permissible. A representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC was maintainable because the allottees shared the same interest and common grievance under the housing scheme, and separate causes of action did not by themselves bar representative proceedings. The challenge to maintainability was rejected and the representative suit was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 07 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193815