Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2015 DIGILAW 1242 (SC)

Sunil Kumar Wadhwa v. State of Punjab

2015-09-16

DIPAK MISRA, PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2015
JUDGMENT : Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal is directed against order dated 18.2.2013, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, by which Civil Writ Petition No. 18865 of 2010 is disposed of, relegating the appellants to approach civil court with liberty to file suit in the matter in dispute. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 3. The controversy in the present matter revolves around the rights and title in respect of plot No. 109-C, admeasuring 268.94 square yards located in Sector 70, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Punjab. The plot was initially allotted to Gurnaib Singh (since died), father of respondent Nos. 3(i) and 3(ii), on 18.5.1994 by Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA). It is pleaded by the appellants that Gurnaib Singh, through a broker/property dealer D.S. Benipal, agreed to sell his rights over the plot to the appellants. It is further pleaded that entire sale consideration was received by him (Gurnaib Singh). Consequent to said transaction, PUDA re-allotted the plot to the appellants on 18/19.1.2001 (Annexure P-2), who deposited the instalments. However, Ajmer Singh, brother of Gurnaib Singh, subsequent to re-allotment, on 5.2.2001, filed Civil Suit No. 25/2001 claiming half share over the plot, before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kharar, impleading appellants Sunil Wadhwa and Poonam Wadhwa along with Gurnaib Singh. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, vide judgment and order dated 22.4.2003 (Annexure P-7), against which Ajmer Singh preferred Civil Appeal No. RT-100/07.05.2003/10.4.2004, but Gurnaib Singh did not challenge the decree. The Civil Appeal No. RT-100/07.05.2003/10.4.2004, filed by Ajmer Singh, was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rup Nagar, vide judgment and order dated 14.10.2004 (Annexure P-10). 4. After about five years, Gurnaib Singh challenged the re-allotment dated 18/19.1.2001 before Additional Chief Administrator, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA)/ PUDA. Said Authority, vide order dated 25.3.2010 (Annexure P-11), cancelled the re-allotment in favour of the appellants. The revision preferred by the appellants before the Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development Authority (respondent No. 1) under Punjab Urban Town Planning Act, was dismissed on 31.8.2010. On this, the appellants filed writ petition before the High Court, which was disposed of vide impugned order mentioned above. 5. The revision preferred by the appellants before the Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development Authority (respondent No. 1) under Punjab Urban Town Planning Act, was dismissed on 31.8.2010. On this, the appellants filed writ petition before the High Court, which was disposed of vide impugned order mentioned above. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants argued before us that the High Court has erred in appreciating the fact that Gurnaib Singh had sold his rights over the plot, and after accepting full consideration, submitted his application before PUDA on which re-allotment order was passed in favour of the appellants. It is contended that it is not open now for Gurnaib Singh or his sons to retract from the consent given in the year 2000. Our attention is drawn on behalf of the appellants to Annexure P-4 (copy of the written statement filed by defendant No. 1 Gurnaib Singh in Civil Suit No. 25/05.02.2001). Paragraph 2 of the written statement filed by Gurnaib Singh discloses following facts: - "........The answering defendant No. 1 has sold the plot in dispute to defendant Nos. 2 and 3 earlier to the filing of the suit and the Estate Officer, again after completing all the formalities have changed the ownership of the plot in question in the name of defendant Nos. 2 and 3. It is now the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 who are the owners of the plot." Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit are the appellants in whose favour re-allotment is made by PUDA. Copy of the plaint of the suit shows that PUDA was also impleaded in the suit as defendant No. 4. As mentioned above, the suit was dismissed by the trial court, vide judgment and decree dated 22.4.2003 (Annexure P-7). From the papers on record, it is also clear that only plaintiff Ajmer Singh challenged the decree before the appellate court, and the appeal was also dismissed on 14.4.2004. As such, the lis attained the finality in that round between the parties. 6. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court has erred in law in directing the appellants relegating to civil court with liberty to file suit. 7. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that Gurnaib Singh was not paid the consideration, and the appellants took the benefit of his old age. 6. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court has erred in law in directing the appellants relegating to civil court with liberty to file suit. 7. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that Gurnaib Singh was not paid the consideration, and the appellants took the benefit of his old age. However, we do not find substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the respondents for the reason that there is a clear admission on the part of defendant No. 2 in his written statement, as quoted above, regarding the fact that he sold his rights to the appellants. The respondent PUDA appears to have acted on the basis of the application of Gurnaib Singh (Annexure R-3/4) before making re-allotment in January, 2001, in favour of the appellants. Copy of judgment and order dated 13.1.2012, passed in Civil Appeal No. 413/27.11.2004 on the record discloses that another suit (for injunction), filed by Ajmer Singh, was also dismissed by the court. Annexure P-12 to the petition shows that Civil Suit No. 125/11.8.2003/29.4.2009, filed by Gurnaib Singh for specific performance of contract, was also dismissed as withdrawn vide decree dated 22.4.2010. 8. In view of the above documentary evidence on record, the High Court was not justified in relegating the appellants to approach the civil court. In our opinion, the documents discussed above are sufficient to show as to why the re-allotment of plot was done in favour of the appellants. As far as payment of consideration to Gurnaib Singh is concerned, said fact is evident from the acknowledgement slip, with application moved by him before PUDA in 2001. It is not in dispute that the payment of instalments in respect of the plot was made by the appellants to PUDA. The respondent authorities have committed grave error in law in cancelling the re-allotment long after the same was done, on the objection on Gurnaib Singh, who had earlier himself made the application in favour of the appellants, and also supported their stand in the suit filed by his brother Ajmer Singh. 9. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. The order of cancellation of re-allotment, passed by PUDA, and consequential orders stand quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.