Holding

The respondent could not question the rate of land as he was not entitled to the earlier relief and had agreed to the prevailing rate, rendering the High Court's direction to apply the 1985 rate unsustainable.

Summary

The State of Punjab acquired land for urban development in SAS Nagar and framed a 1974 scheme to allot residential plots to persons whose land was taken. Mewa Singh, claiming a one‑fourth share in 66 kanals 9 marlas, applied in 1980 for a plot, asserting sole entitlement. Earlier writ proceedings (1981) granted relief to other co‑sharers but expressly excluded him, and the Supreme Court later noted that no relief was ever claimed on his behalf. In 2001 he received an allotment letter at the prevailing PUDA rate of Rs 3,200 per square yard, which he accepted in an affidavit. He subsequently filed a writ petition seeking the rate fixed in 1985; the Punjab & Haryana High Court directed that the 1985 rate be applied. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court erred because Mewa Singh was not entitled to the earlier relief and had agreed to the prevailing rate, and therefore the 1985 rate could not be imposed. The Court ordered that, upon payment of the amount due within three months, the land be allotted and possession delivered.

Issues considered

Whether a co‑sharer who was not granted relief in earlier writ proceedings can claim the benefit of relief granted to other petitioners.
Whether the court can alter the rate of land for allotment when the applicant had expressly agreed to the prevailing PUDA rate.
Whether the Punjab & Haryana High Court erred in directing the application of the 1985 land rate to the respondent.

Subjects

urban developmentland acquisitionallotment schemeco‑sharerrate of landwrit petitionreliefPUDA

Judgment

A STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
v.
MEWA SINGH

MARCH 23. 2006

B [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.]

URBAN DEVELUPMENT:

Scheme for allotment of plots-In lieu of land acquired by the State-··
C Claim for allotment by co-sharer--Writ Petition on the question of entitlement
of group of co-sharers-- No relief granted for the co-sharer in question-
Application of co-sharer for allotment agreeing to prevalent rate of land-
Allotment made-Rate of land questioned in Writ Petition----High Court granting
relief directing the rate prevalent in 1985 to be applied--.Qn appeal. held: The
D co-sharer could not question the rate of land as he was not entitled to the
relief given in the earlier proceedings before the court because therein no
relief was granted tu him-He had also agreed to pay the prevalent rate.

Appellants had framed a scheme for allotment of residentiirl plots
E to the eligible persons whose land was acquired for urban development
Respondent claiming to be co-sharer to the extent of I/4th in a piece of
land, made application in 1980 to the effect that he alone was entitled to
-
the plot under the scheme.

On the question of entitlement of a group of co-sharers a Writ
F Petition was filed before High Court wherein respondent herein was one
of the appellants. Therein no relief was granted to some of the Writ
Petitioners including the respondent herein as no relief was claimed qua
them. In appeal thereagainst, no discussion was made qua the respondent
herein in view of the fact that his case was not pressed before the High
G Court. In appeal to this Court also no relief was granted to him.

Respondent applied for allotment with the appellant. In the affidavit
accompanying its letter, the respondent had indicated that he was
agreeable to the prevalent rates of Punjab Urban Planning and

H 216
STATE OF PUNJAB v. MEWA SINGH [PASAYAT, J.) 217

Development (PUDA). Accordingly in 2001 allotment letter was issued A
fixing the rate. Respondent filed Writ Petition, questioning the rate fixed.
High Court granted relief directing the rate prevalent in 1985 was to be
applied. Hence the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
B
HELD: I. 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 High Court's order
clearly indicates that no relief was claimed so far as the present respondent C
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. The respondent himself in the affidavit
accompanying the letter had clearly indicated that he was agreeable to
the prevalent rates of PUDA. 1219-D-F] D

2. In case the respondent deposits the amount payable pursuant to
the allotment letter within three months from the date of the judgment,
the appellants shall allot the land and deliver possession. 1219-H; 220-A)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4006 of2004. E

From the Judgment and Final Order dated 17. 7.2003 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 12393/2001.

Altaf Ahmed and Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar for the Appellants. F

Manoj Swamp, Neeraj Sharma, Naresh Kaushal, Dinesh Verma, Ms.
Suresh Kumari, A.P. Mohanty, G.K. Bansal (N.P:), R.K. Talwar, S.S. Virk,
Amit Talwar and S.L. Aneja for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G

ARIJIT PASAYA T, 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 H
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 3 S.C.R.

A @ 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.
B 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
C I/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
D 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. I, 6, 7 and 15. As noted above, the respondent was writ-
E 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. I, 6, 7 and 15."

F The matter was carried before this Court in CA No.168/1983. By order
dated 11.9.1997 the appeal filed by 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
G 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 al:otment letter was issued. It was clearly mentioned
H therein that tentative price of the plot was Rs.8,40,000/- calculated
STATE OF PUNJAB v. MEWA SINGH [PASAYAT, J.] 219
@ Rs.3,200/- per square yd. Questioning the rate fixed, the writ petition was A
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 B
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
C

decision of the High Court and the order of this Court. Therefore, the High
Court was justified in directing application of rate of 1985.
D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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 H
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] 3 S.C.R.

A 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 any order as to
costs.

B K.KT. Appeal allowed.

~--