Of Punjab & Anr
Vs. Mewa Singh  Insc
141 (23 March 2006)
Arijit Pasayat & Tarun
Chatterjee Arijit Pasayat, J.
in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court directing appellants to allot a plot to the respondent at the rate
which was prevalent in the year 1985. It was, however, directed that respondent
has to pay interest @ 12% from 1985 upto the date of
actual payment after adjustment of Rs.13,700/- which
had already been paid as sale consideration. The order was passed in a writ
petition filed by the respondent seeking a direction to the present appellants
to modify the price indicated in the allotment letter dated 13.7.2001. The rate
indicated was Rs.3,200/- per square yard.
facts in a nutshell are as follows:- The appellants
acquired land belonging to several persons for the purpose of urban development
of SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab). The award was made on 24.3.1976.
The respondent was claiming to be co-sharer to the extent of 1/4th in the land
so far as an area of 66 Kanals 9 Marlas
of land is concerned. The appellants had framed scheme known as "Scheme of
1974" for allotment of residential plots to the eligible persons whose
land was acquired for the aforesaid purpose. The respondent made an application
on 6.3.1980 taking the stand that he alone was entitled to the allotment of the
residential plot under the scheme. There were certain changes made in the
scheme with which we are not concerned. On the question of entitlement of a
group of co- sharers a writ petition was filed before the Punjab & Haryana High Court numbered as writ petition no.4837/1981.
The respondent was petitioner no.6. By order dated 4.5.1982, relief was granted
to the writ-petitioners except writ-petitioner nos. 1, 6, 7 and 15. As noted
above, the respondent was writ- petitioner no.6. In the said order it was
clearly indicated as follows:- "Before parting
with the judgment, it is made clear that Mr. Ajmer
Singh has not claimed any relief qua petitioners Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 15." The
matter was carried before this Court in CA No.168/1983. By order dated
11.9.1997 the appeal filed by the present appellants was dismissed. Here again,
the entitlement of respondents in the civil appeal was decided, but so far as
respondent Mewa Singh is concerned, no discussion was
made in view of the admitted position that his case was not pressed before the
High Court. The respondent filed petition before the appellant praying for
allotment. The letter written by the respondent dated 8.9.2000 related to
allotment of plot against the original registration No.9895 in the oustees category. In the accompanying affidavit it was
clearly indicated that he was agreeable to the prevalent rates of Punjab Urban
Planning and Development (in short 'PUDA').
on 13.7.2001 allotment letter was issued. It was clearly mentioned therein that
tentative price of the plot was Rs.8,40,000/-
calculated @ Rs.3,200/- per square yd.
the rate fixed, the writ petition was filed and as noted above the High Court
granted relief directing the rate prevalent in 1985 was to be applied.
support of the appeal, Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned Senior counsel submitted that the High Court has erroneously
proceeded on the basis as if in the earlier order passed in the writ petition,
relief had been granted to the respondent. It is to be noted that the awards
were dated 24.3.1975, 20.2.1996 and 14.8.1996. In view of the fresh allotment
made the rate prevalent which the respondent himself had agreed to pay was
other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there was
confusion about the entitlement for the plot where co-sharers were involved.
The principles relating to allotment were decided earlier by the decision of
the High Court and the order of this Court. Therefore, the High Court was
justified in directing application of rate of 1985.
judgment of the High Court is unsustainable on several counts. The first
fallacy in the High Court's judgment is that it proceeded on the assumption
that in the earlier writ petition relief had been granted to the respondent. On
the contrary, the portion of the High Court's order as quoted above clearly
indicates that no relief was claimed so far as the present respondent is concerned.
Therefore, the question of respondent being entitled to relief given to other
writ- petitioners and the respondents in the civil appeal before this Court
does not arise.
the respondent himself in the affidavit accompanying the letter had clearly
indicated that he was agreeable to the prevalent rates of PUDA. This is clearly
stated in the paragraph 6 of the affidavit accompanying respondent's letter
dated 8.9.2000. There is no dispute that at the time allotment was made by the
allotment letter dated 13.7.2001, the rate was Rs.3200/- per sq. yd.
being the position, the High Court's direction to the appellants to charge rate
prevalent in the year 1985 is clearly unsustainable. Learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that the respondent is willing to pay at the rate
indicated in the allotment letter dated 13.7.2001. In case the respondent
deposits the amount payable pursuant to the allotment letter within three
months from today, the appellants shall allot the land and deliver possession
within two weeks from the date of the payment of the amount due which is to be
calculated by the appellants.
appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.