Full Judgment Text
Civil Appeal No.4709/2011
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.4709 of 2011
Haryana Urban Development Authority
& Anr. … Appellant(s)
Versus
Jagdeep Singh … Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The Order dated 28.10.2009 passed by the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in RSA No. 1449 of 2009 has been
challenged in the present appeal. By the aforesaid order, the
appeal filed by the Appellants was dismissed and concurrent
findings of facts recorded by the Trial Court as well as by the
First Appellate Court were upheld.
2. The dispute pertains to demand of additional price
for the allotment of plot to the Respondent.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Anita Malhotra
Date: 2023.05.08
16:19:50 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 17
Civil Appeal No.4709/2011
3. The Respondent was allotted plot no.1084 in Sector-
14, (Part), Hisar vide allotment letter dated 21.08.1986 @
₹ 224.90 per sq. yard.
4. Notice was issued to the Respondent by the
Appellants on 15.01.1993 raising demand of additional price as
well as to show cause as to why the plot should not be resumed
on account of non-construction within a period of two years of
allotment.The aforesaid notice was followed by subsequent
notices and the last being dated 28.01.2002.
5. A civil suit was filed by the Respondent on
01.10.2003 challenging the demand raised by the present
Appellants. The same was decreed. Aggrieved by the same,
the present Appellant filed appeal which was dismissed by the
lower Appellate Court. The Appellants did not succeed even
before the High Court.
6. The learned Trial Court accepted the plea raised by
the respondent on the ground that in terms of the conditions
contained in the letter of allotment, the demand of additional
price could be raised only in case of enhancement in cost of
land by the competent authority under Land Acquisition Act. As
Page 2 of 17
Civil Appeal No.4709/2011
in the case in hand, there is no enhancement in cost of land
awarded by any Court or authority, therefore, no additional
demand could be raised.
7. The argument raised by learned counsel for the
Appellants is that the land in question was transferred by the
Animal Husbandry Department, Haryana to the Appellants @
₹ 1,21,000/- per acre. However, later on the rate was revised to
₹ 3,00,000/- per acre. On failure, the Appellants were not to be
given possession of the land. The allotments had been made by
the Appellants on 21.08.1986 @ ₹ 224.90. Initially when the
plot was allotted to the Respondent, calculation of price was
made taking the cost of the land at ₹ 1,21,000/- per acre.
However, later on the cost was increased to ₹ 3,00,000/- per
acre, an additional price was demanded. The price of the plot
was worked out at ₹ 301.70 sq. yard and the additional demand
was raised from the Respondent @ ₹ 76.80 per sq.yd. It was
also stated in the notice that though the cost of development
charges has been increased in the last 5 to 6 years, however
still the Appellants will bear the same. As the cost of the land to
the Appellants increased, the same had to be borne by the
allottees. The Appellants being non-profitable Organisation.
Page 3 of 17
Civil Appeal No.4709/2011
8. It was further stated in the notice that in case the
Respondent is not ready to accept the allotment of plot on
payment of an additional price, he may get his deposit back
alongwith interest @ 10% p.a.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
Respondent pleaded that in the case in hand, one of the
condition in the letter of allotment was that the price of the plot
was tentative; the additional price can be demanded only on
account of increase in cost of land awarded by the competent
authority under the Land Acquisition Act. It is admitted case of
the Appellant that the land on which the plot in question was
carved out was not acquired rather it was transferred by the
Animal Husbandry Department of the State to the Appellants.
The price thereof was determined at the time of transfer,
however, in case later on different price is determined, the
allottees cannot be made to bear the increased cost.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record and relevant documents.
Page 4 of 17
Civil Appeal No.4709/2011
11. The fact that a plot was allotted to the Respondent
vide allotment letter dated 21.08.1986 at the cost of ₹ 224.90
per sq. yard, is not in dispute. It is also the admitted case of
the appellant that the land on which the plot was carved out
was initially owned by the Animal Husbandry Department of the
State which was transferred to the appellant. The initial price
was fixed as ₹ 1,12,000/- per acre. The cost of plot was
calculated including the cost of development and allotments
were made. It transpires from the record that later on, the rate
at which 275.5 acres of land of Animal Husbandry Department
was transferred to the Appellants was revised to ₹ 3,00,000/-
per acre. Whether burden of additional cost of the land could
be put on the plot holders, was the issue before the Courts
below. The relevant clause as contained in the letter of
allotment regarding demand of additional price is extracted
below:
“ Clause 9 : The above price is tentative to the
extend that any enhancement in the cost of land
awarded by the competent authority under the
Land Acquisition Act shall also be payable
proportionately as determined by the authority the
additional price determined shall paid within 30
days of its demand.”
Page 5 of 17
Civil Appeal No.4709/2011
12. The aforesaid clause was interpreted by all the courts
below to mean that the additional price can be demanded in
case there is enhancement in cost of the land awarded by the
competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act. It is the
admitted case of the Appellants that the land for allotment of
the plot was never acquired. Hence, there could not be any
enhancement in the cost of the land by any authority or court
under the Land Acquisition Act.
13. From these undisputed facts on record and the terms
and conditions contained in the allotment letter, there is no
illegality committed by the learned court below in setting aside
the demand of the additional price of the plot allotted to the
Respondent. There is no merit in the present appeal. The
same deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
14. For filing the present frivolous appeal, in our opinion,
the Appellants deserve to be burdened with heavy cost. This
Court had deprecated the conduct of the litigants in flooding
this Court with frivolous litigations, which are choking the
dockets as a result of which the matters, which require
consideration are delayed. Observations made in Dynandeo
Page 6 of 17
Civil Appeal No.4709/2011
1
Sabaji Naik & Ors. vs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar & Ors.
are extracted below:
“13. This Court must view with disfavour any
attempt by a litigant to abuse the process. The
sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously
eroded if such attempts are not dealt with firmly.
A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with
the procedures of the Court should be left in no
doubt about the consequences to follow. Others
should not venture along the same path in the
hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial
leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and
even necessary, in order to ensure that in
litigation, as in the law which is practised in our
country, there is no premium on the truth.
14. Courts across the legal system-this
Court not being an exception - are choked with
litigation. Frivolous and groundless filings
constitute a serious menace to the administration
of justice. They consume time and clog the
infrastructure. Productive resources which should
be deployed in the handling of genuine causes are
dissipated in attending to cases filed only to
1 (2017) 5 SCC 496
Page 7 of 17
Civil Appeal No.4709/2011
benefit from delay, by prolonging dead issues and
pursuing worthless causes. No litigant can have a
vested interest in delay. Unfortunately, as the
present case exemplifies, the process of
dispensing justice is misused by the unscrupulous
to the detriment of the legitimate. The present
case is an illustration of how a simple issue has
occupied the time of the courts and of how
successive applications have been filed to prolong
the inevitable. The person in whose favour the
balance of justice lies has in the process been left
in the lurch by repeated attempts to revive a stale
issue. This tendency can be curbed only if courts
across the system adopt an institutional approach
which penalizes such behaviour. Liberal access to
justice does not mean access to chaos and
Indiscipline. A strong message must be conveyed
that courts of justice will not be allowed to be
disrupted by litigative strategies designed to profit
from the delays of the law. Unless remedial action
is taken by all courts here and now our society will
breed a legal culture based on evasion instead of
abidance. It is the duty of every court to firmly
deal with such situations. The imposition of
exemplary costs is a necessary instrument which
has to be deployed to weed out, as well as to
prevent the filing of frivolous cases. It is only then
that the courts can set apart time to resolve
Page 8 of 17
Civil Appeal No.4709/2011
genuine causes and answer the concerns of those
who are in need of justice. Imposition of real time
costs is also necessary to ensure that access to
courts is available to citizens with genuine
grievances. Otherwise, the doors would be shut to
legitimate causes simply by the weight of
undeserving cases which flood the system. Such a
situation cannot be allowed to come to pass.
Hence it is not merely a matter of discretion but a
duty and obligation cast upon all courts to ensure
that the legal system is not exploited by those
who use the forms of the law to defeat or delay
justice. We commend all courts to deal with
frivolous filings in the same manner.”
( emphasis supplied )
15. The aforesaid judgment was cited with approval in a
later judgment of this Court in ICOMM Tele Ltd. Vs. Punjab
2
State Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Ors.
16. Now coming to the facts of the present case which
clearly establish the case in hand to be a frivolous litigation,
filed by the Appellants, where the officers shirk to take
responsibility.
17. On merits also a similar issue came up for
consideration before this Court in Sanjay Gera vs. Haryana
2 (2019) 4 SCC 401
Page 9 of 17
Civil Appeal No.4709/2011
3
Urban Development Authority & Anr. In the aforesaid
case, the plot was allotted in same Sector-14 (Part), Hissar.
Additional price was demanded for the same as is projected in
the case in hand.
18. Though the High Court had not granted relief to the
allotee, therein however this Court accepted the plea and
quashed the demand of additional price from the allottee,
interpreting the same condition in the letter of allotment as is
in the case in hand. Paragraphs 2, 5 and 6 thereof are
reproduced hereunder:
“2. Brief facts which are necessary for
disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff-
appellant herein was allotted Plot No.940
vide allotment letter bearing No.21548 dated
August 20, 1986 and he deposited an amount
of Rs.18,600 in compliance of the conditions
of the allotment and sent the required
documents. The defendant-respondents
demanded the annual instalment on account
of the said plot and the plaintiff-appellant
deposited the same vide receipt dated
August 21, 1987. After deposit of the total
amount demanded by the defendant-
3 (2005) 3 SCC 207
Page 10 of 17
Civil Appeal No.4709/2011
respondents by sending letter No.1300 dated
January 15, 1993 to the plaintiff-appellant
demanding a sum of Rs.38,400/- to be paid
within a period of thirty days from the date of
issue of the letter in respect of the above
said plot. The plaintiff-appellant challenged
this letter dated January 15, 1993 as illegal,
void and against the principles of natural
justice and on various other counts. The
grievance of the plaintiff-appellant was that
the demand raised by the defendant-
respondents is not valid as the said demand
is not on account of any award given by the
competent Authority under the Land
Acquisition Act and the defendant-
respondents cannot revoke the allotment
made in his favour. The plaintiff-appellant
made a request to the defendant-
respondents to revoke the letter dated
January 15, 1993 but the defendant-
respondents refused to do so. Therefore, the
plaintiff-appellant was completed to file the
present suit with prayer for a declaration to
the effect that the letter dated January 15,
1993 in respect of Plot No. 940, Sector 14,
Part, Hisar issued by defendant No.2 is illegal,
void and liable to be set aside and he also
prayed for consequential relief for permanent
Page 11 of 17
Civil Appeal No.4709/2011
injunction restraining the defendants from
revoking, reviewing or cancelling the
allotment letter issued by the defendants
vide Memo No. 21548 dated August 20, 1986
and from taking any action on the basis of
the aforesaid letter. The plaintiff-appellant
also sought for temporary injunction directing
the defendant-respondents to deliver the
possession of the plot.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the records. There is no
gainsaying that as per condition No.9 of the
allotment order the price in question was
only tentative. But the condition is qualified
that in case any award is given by the Land
Acquisition Officer the price can be
enhanced. Condition No.9 reads as under:
“The above price is tentative to the extent
that any enhancement in the cost of land
awarded by the competent authority
under the Land Acquisition Act shall be
payable proportionately as determined by
the authority. The additional price
determined shall be paid within thirty days
of its demand.”
As per this condition enhancement could be made
on the cost of the land as per the award by the
competent authority under the Land Acquisition
Act. But no such award was given by the Land
Page 12 of 17
Civil Appeal No.4709/2011
Acquisition authority. In a suit a duty is cast on
the defendants to lead evidence to show that
increase on the cost of the land is necessitated
because of enhancement of paying higher rate of
compensation to the Animal Husbandry
Department. But no such evidence was led in the
suit. D.W.1 nowhere stated that this enhancement
was warranted because Animal Husbandry
Department had to be paid compensation at
higher rate for acquisition of this land. It may be
that because of decision given by the Punjab and
Haryana High Court, it enabled the defendants to
claim higher price for allotted plot. In a civil suit
all facts have to be pleaded and proved. But in
the present case, there is no evidence to
substantiate the allegation. It was incumbent on
the part of the Haryana Urban Development
Authority to substantiate the same by leading
proper evidence that the enhancement was
effected on account of increase in the price of
acquisition of land. But the statement of DW-1,
the only evidence which has been led by the
defendant/respondent is significantly silent on this
issue. In civil matters, the rights of the parties
cannot be determined just on the basis of any
other judgment on questions of fact. It is the duty
of the defendants to specifically plead and prove
their case by leading proper evidence in the
Page 13 of 17
Civil Appeal No.4709/2011
matter. As per the evidence led by the
defendant/respondent i.e. the documentary
evidence as well as the oral evidence, the
allegations made by the defendants are not
substantiated. So far as condition no.9 of the
allotment letter is concerned, there is no dispute
that the defendants can demand additional price
as the price at the time of allotment was tentative.
But in order to justify the enhancement of the
price as per condition No. 9 of the allotment letter,
the defendants had to lead proper evidence to
substantiate the allegation. There is no such
evidence produced by the defendants. Therefore,
the trial court has rightly approached in the matter
and this is a case of total misreading of the
evidence by the learned Additional 'District Judge
as well as by learned Single Judge of the High
Court.
6. In the result of our above discussion, we
are of the opinion that the order passed by
the trial court is justified and the view taken
by the Additional District Judge as well as
learned Single Judge of the High Court in the
facts and circumstances of this case does not
appear to be justified. Hence, we allow this
appeal and set aside the order passed by the
learned Single Judge of the High Court as well
as the order passed by the Additional District
Page 14 of 17
Civil Appeal No.4709/2011
Judge, Hisar and confirm the order dated
March 27, 1996 passed by the trial court. No
order as to costs.”
19. The issue sought to be raised before this Court was
referring to the letter dated 01/12/1992 which according to the
Appellants shows the amount required to be paid by the
Appellants to the Animal Husbandry Department for the land
transferred to Sector -14, (Part), Hisar. The idea to show the
letter was that in fact the amount required to be paid for
transfer of land was ₹ 3,00,000 instead of ₹ 1,21,000/- per acre.
The fact remains that the aforesaid document has been
referred to and considered by this Court in Sanjay Gera’s
case (supra) and no merit was found in the arguments raised.
20. In the case in hand, the civil suit was filed on
1.10.2003 by the Respondent challenging the demand of
additional price. Judgment of this Court in Sanjay Gera’s case
was delivered on 22.02.2005. Despite this fact being in
knowledge of the Appellants, the suit was contested and the
same was decreed on 19.08.2008. The matter did not end
here, appeal was preferred by the appellant before the First
Page 15 of 17
Civil Appeal No.4709/2011
Appellate Court and on failure even before the High Court and
thereafter before this Court. For the aforesaid reasons and
wasting the time of the Courts at different levels, we deem it
appropriate to burden the Appellants with cost of ₹ 1,00,000/- to
be deposited with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre.
21. In addition, the Respondent having been dragged in
unnecessary litigation upto this Court deserves to be awarded
cost of ₹ 50,000/-.
22. The aforesaid amount shall be recovered by the
Appellants from the guilty officers/officials who opined the case
to be fit for filing appeal at different levels despite being
covered by judgment of this Court.
23. The additional amount sought to be recovered from
the Respondent was ₹ 26,880/- to which there was no
justification even at the stage of issuance of notice. The suit
was decreed on 19.08.2008. The amount spent on litigation
would be much more. It is because of impersonal and
irresponsible attitude of the officers, who want to put
everything to Court and shirk to take decisions. However, still
the Appellants had not only filed appeals, resulting in addition
to the pendency of cases and also must have spent huge
Page 16 of 17
Civil Appeal No.4709/2011
amount on litigation in the form of fee of the counsels and
allied expenses. Besides that, number of officer(s)/official(s)
must have visited the counsel engaged either at Chandigarh,
when the matter was taken up in the High Court and thereafter
to this Court, when the order was challenged before this Court.
Even that amount also needs to be calculated and recovered
from the guilty officers who, despite there being judgment of
this Court, dealing with the same issue opined the case to be fit
for filing appeals.
24. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
The amount of cost be deposited in Supreme Court Mediation
Centre and paid to the respondent within two months from
today and regarding cost of litigation, needful shall be done
within six months. Affidavit of compliance to be filed in this
Court.
……………….., J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
……………….., J.
(Rajesh Bindal)
New Delhi
May 8, 2023.
//jk-pm//
Page 17 of 17