http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (civil)  2426 of 2007

PETITIONER: Punjab Urban Planning & Dev. Authority

RESPONDENT: Gurmail Singh & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/03/2008

BENCH: R V Raveendran & P. Sathasivam

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T Non Reportable

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Civil) NO.2426 OF 2007

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.

       The petitioner (Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority \026  ’PUPDA’ for short) allotted Site No.SCF 83 in Mohali in favour of the  respondents, on acceptance of their bid of Rs.15,10,000/- for the said site at  an auction held on 10th August, 1994. The letter of allotment dated  29.5.1995 took note of payment of Rs.3,77,500/- (payment of 25% of the  price) and permitted the respondents to pay the balance of Rs.1132500/-  towards price and Rs.283125/- towards interest upto 10.8.1998 at 10% per  annum, in four equated instalments on 10.8.1995, 10.8.1996, 10.8.1997 and  10.8.1998. The letter of allotment required PUPDA to deliver the possession  of the site to the allottee within three months.  

2.      The Estate Officer of PUPDA made an order dated 21.7.1997  resuming the site on the ground that the respondents had failed to pay the  instalments. The respondents challenged the order of resumption before the  Appellate Authority contending that they could not pay the instalments, as  PUPDA had not delivered possession of the site. To show their bona fides  they sought the permission of the Appellate authority to deposit  Rs.1415625/- being the balance of price and interest, in terms of the letter of  allotment. On such permission being granted, the respondents deposited the  said amount on 16.8.2001. The Appellate Authority by order dated  13.12.2001 set aside the resumption order and restored the allotment of the  site in favour of the respondents and directed the Estate Officer to inform  them about the amount of interest/penalty payable in respect of the delayed  payments.  

3.      The respondents challenged the order of Appellate Authority in  revision. The Revisional Authority by order dated 26.8.2003 held that the  respondents were not liable to pay any interest/penalty for the period when  possession was not delivered. He directed the Estate Officer to deliver the  site to the respondent and reschedule the instalments from the date when  possession was handed over. In pursuance of the said order, possession was  delivered to the respondents on 6.1.2004. The said order was belatedly  challenged by the PUPDA before the High Court in the year 2006. The High  Court has rejected the writ petition as having no merit.

4.      Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the resumption order  was quashed on a wrong assumption that the site in question was under some  dispute with a Gurudwara and PUPDA was not in a position to deliver the  site as per letter of allotment; that the dispute with the Gurudwara was sorted

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

out prior to the auction sale and as on the date of the auction sale  and the  due date for delivery of possession, there was no pending dispute and no  impediment for delivery and the non-delivery was only on account of  respondents failing to take possession; and that long thereafter there was  some encroachment which was solely on account of respondents not taking  possession and committing breach; and that therefore there was no infirmity  in the order for resumption.  

5.      We find no merit in the contention of the petitioner. The appellate  authority had also set aside the cancellation of allotment and had directed  restoration of the site to the respondents and that order was not challenged  by  PUPDA and attained finality. It was respondents who challenged the  order of the appellate authority before the revisional authority, being  aggrieved by the direction for payment of interest and penalty. We do not  propose to interfere with the concurrent finding of the appellate authority,  revisional authority and the High Court directing restoration of the site to the  respondents.

6.      Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the authority is  entitled to interest at 10% P.A. and penalty from 11.8.1998 up to the date of  payment. It was submitted that interest was paid only up to 10.9.1998 and  interest for the balance period \026 that is 11.8.1998 to 16.8.2001 (date of  payment) was not paid. On the other hand learned counsel for the  respondents submitted that the respondents had paid the full price as also  Rs.2,83,125/- towards interest on 16.8.2001 itself, even though the  possession of the site was delivered to them only on 6.1.2004; and that as  per the order of the revisional authority, affirmed by the High Court, the  respondents are not liable to pay interest or penalty for the period during  which possession was not handed over to them, and as possession was  delivered only on 6.1.2004 long after full payment on 16.8.2001, PUPDA  was itself liable to refund the amount paid by Respondents towards the  interest and also pay interest to respondents on the value of the site from  16.8.2001 to 6.1.2004. But the learned counsel for respondents submitted on  instructions, that the respondents were not interested in seeking refund of  any amount from PUPDA and were only interested in the long pending issue  being closed.  

7.      In view of the above, it is unnecessary to examine the claim regarding  interest. The petition is disposed of by recording the submission of the  respondents that they will not press for refund of any part of amount paid  towards interest or otherwise from PUPDA. It is needless to say that  PUPDA shall convey the allotted site to the respondents on fulfillment of the  required formalities. Parties to bear respective costs.