NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO._1036_____/2009  (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.2458 OF 2006)

 State of Haryana & Others ...Appellants

- Versus -

Narinder Kumar & Others   ..Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

GANGULY, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The State of Haryana is in appeal impugning the

judgment and order dated 25.8.2005 passed by the

Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court  in  Civil  Writ

Petition No. 14024 of 2004.  The writ petitioners’

(hereinafter “the respondents”) grievances in the

High  Court  were  that  Market  Committee,  Kosli

(hereinafter “the Said Committee”) framed a scheme

for the development of the Grain Market at Kosli.

1

Plots located in the Grain Market were auctioned

from 1972 to 2002 and the respondents were allotted

plots  in  the  said  Grain  Market.  But  the  main

grievances  of  the  allottees  are  that  the  basic

facilities for the smooth running of their business

were not provided by the said Committee. The High

Court  by  referring  to  the  pleadings  between  the

parties  indicated  that  several  facilities  like

sewerage system and water supply, construction of

covered sheds, common platform, road and parking

facilities, public toilets, cooler room etc. were

not in order and these are basic facilities for

smooth  running  of  the  business  of  the  stall

holders.  Before the High Court, the said Committee

took a stand that the aforesaid infrastructure will

be positively in its place within a period of one

year from the date of payment of the entire dues by

the respondents.  It was also the stand of the said

Committee that before the aforesaid facilities are

provided, the said Committee shall not charge any

penal  interest  from  the  respondents  in  view  of

another decision of the Division Bench of the same

High Court in the case of  Pankaj Sharma & Others

2

Vs. State of Haryana & Others (2003 (2) PLJ 166). That  decision  was  not  appealed  against  and  has

become  final.   The  stand  taken  before  the  High

Court by the said Committee was, the respondents

also  should  be  made  liable  to  pay  the  balance

purchase price due to the Committee on account of

plots allotted to them.   The Hon’ble High Court on

the basis of the aforesaid controversies between

the parties directed the Committee to furnish the

entire balance amount payable by the respondents

and also to inform the exact instalments due from

them.  After saying so, the Hon’ble High Court held

that in case the respondents did not deposit the

instalments in terms of the order of this court,

they  will  not  be  entitled  to  raise  any  demands

against the said Committee.   

3. Before this Court, a chart regarding payment of

instalments has been produced and from the chart we

find that there are no dues.  That chart, however

has been furnished before us by the respondents in

their counter affidavit.

4. This  Court  therefore,  disposes  of  this

proceeding by directing the appellants to verify

3

the particulars given in the same chart and if it

is  found  that  the  respondents  have  made  their

entire payment and there are no dues outstanding,

in that case, all the basic facilities should be

made  available  by  the  said  Committee  within  a

period of six months from the date of the order.

5. The appeal is thus disposed of.           

.......................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

.......................J. New Delhi (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

February 13, 2009

4