http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4006 of 2004

PETITIONER: State of Punjab & Anr.                                   

RESPONDENT: Mewa Singh                                                      

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/03/2006

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & TARUN CHATTERJEE

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

       Challenge 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.

       Background 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

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’).   Accordingly 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.   Questioning 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.   

       In 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  applied.   

On the 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.

       The 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.                                                                  

       Admittedly, 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.   

       Above 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.

       The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

any order as to costs.