ANJANA SARAIYA vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3784 of 2022  Anjana Saraiya    ...Appellant  Versus The State of U.P. & Ors.          ...Respondents J U D G M E N T  M. R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 03.04.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ ­ C No.56136   of   2006   by   which   the   High   Court   has dismissed   the   said   writ   petition   preferred   by   the appellant   herein,   the   original   writ   petitioner   has preferred the present appeal. 2. The appellant herein, a lady of about 55 years, was allotted   a   residential   property   being   Plot   No.415 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2022.05.12 15:53:54 IST Reason: admeasuring   150   square   meters   in   Organized 1 Development Scheme, Phase­III, Pilkhuwa, District – Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh by the respondents under the   category   of   Middle­Income   Group.     After   being successful   in   the   draw   of   lots,   the   appellant   was allotted the said plot at a price of Rs.2,70,000/­.  That the   appellant   herein   made   an   upfront   payment   of Rs.94,500/­ in the year 2003 itself and thereafter paid the   first   three   instalments   regularly   and   in   time. However, thereafter there was a default in making the payment of installment nos. 4 to 7.  According to the appellant   due   to   the   continuous   ill­health   of   her husband she was in a financial crisis due to which she was unable to deposit the remaining instalments. That   the   petitioner   was   served   with  a  notice   dated 14.06.2006   from   the   Office   of   Municipal   Council which, according to the appellant was served on her on 19.06.2006 by which the appellant was informed that   due   to   non­deposit   of   the   instalments   of   the balance   amount   the   allotment   has   been   cancelled. However, according to the appellant, even before the said   notice   was   served   upon   her,   she   managed   to 2 secure the money from her relatives and deposited the balance   amount   with   interest   i.e.   Rs.1,39,000/­   on 16.06.2006.     Out   of   payment   of   Rs.1,39,000/­   on 16.06.2006, an amount of Rs.1,04,128/­ (for last four instalments)   was   towards   principal   amount   and Rs.34,872/­ was towards interest amount. Thus, as on 16.06.2006 the appellant deposited the   entire   amount   and   cleared   all   the   instalments along   with   the   interest.     Thereafter   the   appellant herein, the allottee, filed the writ petition before the High Court and prayed for the following reliefs: “(i)   Issue a writ, order or direction in the   nature   of   certiorari   to   quash   the letter/notice/order   dated   14.06.2006 against   the   allotment   of   Plot   No.415, issued   by   the   respondent   no.3 (Annexure No.1 to this writ petition). (ii)   Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the   respondents   not   to   initiate   any proceedings against the Plot No.415 of the   petitioner   in   pursuance   of letter/notice/order   dated   14.06.2006 issued by respondent no.3. (iii)   Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents   to   complete   the 3 registration proceedings and also direct the   respondents   not   to   allot   the aforesaid   plot   No.415   to   any   other person except to the petitioner.” 2.1 That pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court   the   appellant   deposited   a   further   sum   of Rs.50,000/­ on 21.11.2006.   Therefore, by the time the petition was heard by the High Court, against the total value of the plot i.e. 2,70,000/­, the appellant deposited   a   total   sum   of   Rs.3,84,546/­   (including interest).   By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition solely on the ground and by observing that the appellant did not fulfil the terms and conditions as provided under the   Scheme   and   did   not   deposit   the   instalments regularly and as and when due and payable, therefore the authorities were within their rights to cancel the allotment.  At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the meantime and on cancellation of the allotment the   respondents   refunded   the   entire   money   after deducting 20% of the deposited amount which was sent  to  the   appellant  through cheque   which  is  not 4 encashed   by   the   appellant.     By   the   impugned judgment and order the High Court has dismissed the writ   petition   which   has   given   rise   to   the   present appeal. 3. Shri Kavin Gulati, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that as such against the total sale consideration of Rs.2,70,000/­, by now the appellant has deposited a total sum of Rs.3,84,546/­ (including interest) which is lying with the respondent. 3.1 It is submitted that as such there was no deliberate and/or willful default on the part of the appellant in not depositing the instalments regularly as and when due and payable.  It is submitted that due to the ill­ health   of   her   husband   and   she,   being   in   financial difficulty, could not make the deposit of instalments in time.  It is submitted that over and above the amount of   Rs.50,000/­   which   has   been   deposited   by   the appellant pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court, the appellant was ready and willing to pay 5 Rupees two lakhs for the compensation for the delayed payment.  It is submitted that even as of now also the appellant is ready and willing to deposit a further sum of   Rs.2   lakhs   towards   the   compensation   for   the delayed payment and/or to regularize the payment of instalments. 4. Shri V.K. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on   behalf   of   the   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh   and   Shri Dinesh   Kumar   Garg,   learned   Senior   Advocate, appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respondent   No.3   have supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. 4.1 It is submitted that under the Scheme and as per the allotment letter the appellant was required to deposit the amount of instalments regularly and as and when due and payable.   It is submitted that after the first three   instalments   were   paid,   the   appellant   did   not make the payment of the next four instalments and therefore   the   authority   was   well   within   its   right   to cancel the allotment.   It is submitted that thereafter 6 having  found   that  the   appellant  had   not  made   the payment of the instalments regularly and as and when due and payable the allotment was cancelled.   It is submitted that the High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 5. Having   heard   learned   counsel   for   the   respective parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that if on payment of a further sum of Rs.2 lakhs towards the compensation for the delayed payment of instalments, the account of the appellant   be   regularized   and   the   allotment   made under   the   Middle­Income   Scheme   in   favour   of   the appellant who is a lady can be saved. 5.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that at the time of allotment, the appellant made   the   upfront   payment   of   Rs.94,500/­   and thereafter   made   payment   towards   the   first   three instalments.   However, thereafter because of the ill­ health of her husband she was in financial difficulty and therefore she could not make the payment of the 7 remaining   four   instalments   which   she   made   on 16.06.2006   with   interest.     The   aforesaid   payments show her bonafides and that there was no deliberate, willful delay on the part of the appellant in not making the payment of instalments in time.   Even thereafter the   appellant   has   deposited   a   further   sum   of Rs.50,000/­ pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court and therefore by now the appellant has deposited   a   total   sum   of   Rs.3,84,546/­   (including interest) against the total value/cost of Rs.2,70,000/­. Therefore, now when the appellant is ready and willing to pay a further sum of Rupees two lakhs towards compensation for the delay in making the payment of instalments, we are of the opinion that the offer made by the appellant is a fair offer and by which, allotment of plot in favour of a lady which is made under the Middle­Income Group Scheme and the plot being still vacant and not allotted to any other person, the order of cancellation may be set aside. 8 6. In view of the above and for the reason stated above, the present appeal is allowed. On payment of a further sum   of   Rs.2,00,000/­   (Rupees   Two   Lakhs)   to   be deposited in favour of the respondent within six weeks from today, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside.   Consequently, the order dated 14.06.2006 cancelling the allotment of the plot in question is hereby quashed and set aside.  On payment of a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/­ (Rupees Two  Lakhs)  within  the  time  stipulated  hereinabove, the respondents are directed to hand over the vacant possession of the plot in question to the appellant and execute the necessary documents, if any, required to be executed within a period of four weeks thereafter. Present   appeal   is   allowed   to   the   aforesaid   extent. There is no order as to costs. …………………………………J.               (M. R. SHAH) …………………………………J.                                                   (B.V. NAGARATHNA) New Delhi,  May 12, 2022. 9