SURJEET SINGH SAHNIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

728                      [2022]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    1 S.C.R. 728                [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A                          SURJEET SINGH SAHNI
                                        v.
                          STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
                  (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3008 of 2022)
B                             FEBRUARY 28, 2022
               [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
             Delay / Laches – Belated representation before appropriate
      authority – Delayed writ petition – Effect of – Held: Mere
      representation before the authority does not extend the period of
C
      limitation and the aggrieved person has to approach the Court
      expeditiously and within reasonable time – If it is found that a writ
      petitioner is guilty of delay and laches, the High Court should dismiss
      it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ petition by
      relegating the writ petitioner to file a representation before the
D     authority and / or directing the authority to decide the representation
      – Such order should not give an opportunity to the petitioner to
      thereafter contend that rejection of the representation subsequently
      (by the authority) has given a fresh cause of action – Constitution
      of India, 1950 – Art.226.
E            Constitution of India, 1950 – Art.226 – Belated writ petition
      u/Art. 226, arising out of contract between the parties – Relief sought
      in the form of specific performance of the contract – Maintainability
      of the writ petition – Held: On facts, no writ u/Art.226 shall be
      maintainable and/or entertainable for specific performance of the
      contract and that too after a period of 10 years by which time even
F
      the suit for specific performance would have been barred by
      limitation – Limitation.
            Dismissing the SLP, the Court
            HELD:1.1. In the instant case, by way of writ petition under
G     Article 226 of the Constitution as such the petitioner prayed for
      a specific performance of Clause 12 of the Sale Deed dated
      19.09.2001. For the first time, the petitioner made a
      representation for allotment of 10% plot as per Clause 12 of the
      Sale Deed dated 19.09.2001 in the year 2010, i.e., after a period

H
                                       728
       SURJEET SINGH SAHNI v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.                   729


of 10 years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed. Therefore,    A
as such if the suit would have been filed for specific performance,
the same would have been barred by limitation. Despite the above,
the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court and
prayed for specific performance of Clause 12 of the Sale Deed
dated 19.09.2001, which was also filed after a period of 11 years
                                                                       B
from the date of execution of the Sale Deed. Therefore, as such
when the earlier writ petition was filed in the year 2011 which
was also barred by delay and laches, the High Court ought not to
have entertained the same. Instead, the High Court entertained
the said writ petition and directed the NOIDA to decide the
representation of the petitioner expeditiously and it gave the fresh   C
blood to the litigation, which otherwise was barred by delay and
laches. NOIDA however rejected the said representation.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed another Writ Petition which was
rightly dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment.
[Paras 4, 7][732-B-E; 733-D]
                                                                       D
       1.2. There are number of orders passed by the High Courts
directing the authorities to decide the representation though the
representations are made belatedly and thereafter when a decision
is taken on such representation, thereafter it can be said on behalf
of the petitioner that the fresh cause of action has arisen on
rejection of the representation. Therefore, when such orders are       E
passed by the High Courts either relegating the petitioner to
make a representation and/or directing the appropriate authority
to decide the representation, the High Courts have to consider
whether the writ petition is filed belatedly and/or the same is
barred by laches and/or not, so that in future the person who has      F
approached belatedly may not contend that the fresh cause of
action has arisen on rejection of the representation. Even in a
case where earlier representation is rejected, the High Court
shall decide the matter on merits. [Para 4][732-F-H; 733-A]
      2. Mere representation does not extend the period of             G
limitation and the aggrieved person has to approach the Court
expeditiously and within reasonable time. If it is found that the
writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches, the High Court should
dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ

                                                                       H
730             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A     petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a representation
      and/or directing the authority to decide the representation, once
      it is found that the original writ petitioner is guilty of delay and
      laches. Such order shall not give an opportunity to the petitioner
      to thereafter contend that rejection of the representation
      subsequently has given a fresh cause of action. [Para 5]
B
      [733-A-C]
            3. Even otherwise on merits also, the High Court by the
      impugned judgment has rightly refused to grant any relief which
      as such was in the form of specific performance of the contract.
      No writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be
C     maintainable and/or entertainable for specific performance of the
      contract and that too after a period of 10 years by which time
      even the suit for specific performance would have been barred
      by limitation. [Para 6][733-D-E]
            EXTRA-ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special
D     Leave Petition (C) No. 3008 of 2022.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 09.09.2021 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Allahabad in WRIT-C No.40336 of 2017.
            Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv., Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Anant Gautam,
E     Nipun Sharma, Ravi Solanki, Shanshank Shekar, Advs. for the Petitioner.
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             M. R. SHAH, J.
            1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order dated 09.09.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
F
      Allahabad in Writ C No.40336 of 2017 by which the High Court has
      dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the petitioner herein, the
      original writ petitioner has preferred the present special leave petition.
             2. The facts leading to the present special leave petition in nutshell
      are as under:-
G
             2.1 That the petitioner entered into a Sale Deed with the respondent
      – NOIDA vide Sale Deed dated 19.09.2001 whereby the petitioner sold
      a Plot No. 163 of Khata No. 254 to the NOIDA under the provisions of
      Section 6 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 and in
      terms of the Resolution in 102nd meeting of NOIDA. According to the
H
        SURJEET SINGH SAHNI v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.                              731
                      [M. R. SHAH, J.]

petitioner, Clause No. 12 of the Sale Deed clearly provided that a plot of         A
10% area (to be calculated of the total land sold) shall be allotted to the
petitioner on payment of 10% of the amount as being paid under the
Sale Deed. In addition, it clearly recorded that “Original Farmer” shall
also be entitled to “Rehabilitation Bonus”.
        2.2 That after a period of 10 years from the date of execution of          B
the Sale Deed, the petitioner made a representation to NOIDA vide
representation dated 10.03.2010 requesting to allot a plot as agreed in
terms of the Sale Deed. That thereafter the petitioner preferred Writ
Petition No.5599 of 2011 before the High Court of Allahabad inter alia
praying that directions to the NOIDA to allot 10% of the land of the
acquired area of the land of the petitioner for Abadi purposes in terms of         C
Clause 12 of the Sale Deed dated 19.09.2001 and as per Resolution in
102nd meeting of NOIDA Board held on 07.01.1998. Though the said
writ petition was filed after a period of 11 years from the date of execution
of the Sale Deed and though the said writ petition was barred by delay
and laches, the High Court entertained the said writ petition, however,            D
disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 07.04.2017 directing
the NOIDA to decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously
and preferably within a period of six weeks.
          2.3 That thereafter vide order dated 23.05.2017, the NOIDA
rejected the said representation. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with
the order passed by the NOIDA dated 23.05.2017 rejecting the                       E
representation, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.40336 of 2017 by
which the petitioner again prayed to allot 10% plot to him as provided
under Clause 12 of the Sale Deed dated 19.09.2001 and as per the
Resolution passed in 102nd meeting of NOIDA Board on 07.01.1998.
The High Court by the impugned judgment and order has dismissed the                F
said writ petition inter alia holding firstly, that Writ Petition arising out of
contract between parties is not maintainable and petitioner should have
filed a Suit for specific performance; secondly, Writ Petition has been
filed after a delay of 16 years and delay is fatal for challenge to acquisition
or for any claim arising out of it; thirdly, Clause 12 of Sale Deed provided
for allotment of land to original Khatedar and as the petitioner has               G
purchased land in 1970 therefore it’s clear that petitioner is not original
agriculturist; and the establishment of NOIDA in 1976 shall have no
bearing on the matter.
          2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition, the               H
original writ petitioner has preferred the present special leave petition.
732             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A           3. We have heard Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned Senior Advocate
      appearing on behalf of the petitioner at length. We have also gone through
      the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.
              4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by way of writ
      petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as such the petitioner
B     prayed for a specific performance of Clause 12 of the Sale Deed dated
      19.09.2001. For the first time, the petitioner made a representation for
      allotment of 10% plot as per Clause 12 of the Sale Deed dated 19.09.2001
      in the year 2010, i.e., after a period of 10 years from the date of execution
      of the Sale Deed. Therefore, as such if the suit would have been filed
C     for specific performance, the same would have been barred by limitation.
      Despite the above, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High
      Court and as observed hereinabove prayed for specific performance of
      Clause 12 of the Sale Deed dated 19.09.2001 being Writ Petition
      No.37443 of 2011, which was also filed after a period of 11 years from
      the date of execution of the Sale Deed. Therefore, as such when the
D     earlier writ petition was filed in the year 2011 which was also barred by
      delay and laches, the High Court ought not to have entertained the same.
      Instead, the High Court entertained the said writ petition and directed
      the NOIDA to decide the representation of the petitioner, which as such
      was made after a period of 10 years, expeditiously and it gave the fresh
E     blood to the litigation, which otherwise was barred by delay and laches.
      The High Court by passing the order dated 07.04.2017 as such did not
      realise and/or appreciated that the writ petition itself was required to be
      dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as the same was filed after
      a period of 11 years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed under
      which the right was claimed. We have come across number of such
F     orders passed by the High Courts directing the authorities to decide the
      representation though the representations are made belatedly and
      thereafter when a decision is taken on such representation, thereafter it
      can be said on behalf of the petitioner that the fresh cause of action has
      arisen on rejection of the representation. Therefore, when such orders
G     are passed by the High Courts either relegating the petitioner to make a
      representation and/or directing the appropriate authority to decide the
      representation, the High Courts have to consider whether the writ petition
      is filed belatedly and/or the same is barred by laches and/or not, so that
      in future the person who has approached belatedly may not contend that
      the fresh cause of action has arisen on rejection of the representation.
H
         SURJEET SINGH SAHNI v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.                             733
                       [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Even in a case where earlier representation is rejected, the High Court            A
shall decide the matter on merits.
       5. As observed by this Court in catena of decisions, mere
representation does not extend the period of limitation and the aggrieved
person has to approach the Court expeditiously and within reasonable
time. If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches,       B
the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to dispose
of the writ petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a representation
and/or directing the authority to decide the representation, once it is
found that the original writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. Such
order shall not give an opportunity to the petitioner to thereafter contend
                                                                                   C
that rejection of the representation subsequently has given a fresh cause
of action.
       6. Even otherwise on merits also, we are in complete agreement
with the view taken by the High Court. The High Court has rightly refused
to grant any relief which as such was in the form of specific performance
                                                                                   D
of the contract. No writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
shall be maintainable and/or entertainable for specific performance of
the contract and that too after a period of 10 years by which time even
the suit for specific performance would have been barred by limitation.
       7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, there is
no substance in the present special leave petition and the same deserves           E
to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
       Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                              SLP dismissed.   F




                                                                                   G




                                                                                   H