THE ESTATE OFFICER, PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusJAGTAR SINGH AND ORS.

                          [2017] 6 S.C.R. 491


            THE ESTATE OFFICER, PUNJAB                                     A
    URBAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
                                  v.
                    JAGTAR SINGH AND ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 1749 of 2008)
                                                                           B
                            JULY 19,2017
        [KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
         Contempt jurisdiction - Respondent no. I challenged the
excess rates for allotment of plots - Pursuant to direction of High
 Court, rates were reduced - Respondent filed writ petition for C
payment of interest which was disposed of with directions to issue
justice demand notice upon the authorities and on service of such
notice, authorities to take decision within two months from receipt
 of certified copy of the order - Authorities did not respond -
Respondent-allottee flied contempt petition - Meanwhile, authorities D
passed order dated 20'h January, 2006 declining grant of interest
to the respondent-allottee saying that there was no policy to make
payment for interest - When matter came up before High Court in
 the contempt jurisdiction, High Court directed authorities to pay
 interest@ 15% p.a. - Challenged by Estate ojjicer - Held: Normally
 in a contempt jurisdiction the Court should not enter upon E
 adjudication of a dispute - Jn the instant case, no such adjudication
 was made except to pass an order in equity - This matter needs to
 be adjudicated regarding the entitlement of interest - Impugned
judgment passed by the High Court set aside - Further, liberty
granted to the respondent to challenge order dated 2()1h January; F
 2006 before the appropriate forum.
        Disposing of the appeal, the Court
        HELD: Normally in a contempt jurisdiction the Court shall
not enter upon adjudication of a dispute. Maybe the applicant in
a contempt petition is entitled to some relief but relief has to be        G
granted after proper adjudication of the dispute because only after
a proper adjudication, it is clear as to what will be the actual relief,
if any and if at all, that has to be granted to the aggrieved person.
Apparently, in the instant case, no such adjudication has been
                                                                           H
                                 491
492            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2017] 6 S.C.R.


A made except to pass an order in equity. The situation would have
  been different had it been a case of mere implementation or
  execution of an otherwise clear order or direction. In the instant
  case there is no decree or order on entitlement for interest. The
  matter needs adjudication regarding the entitlement of interest.
B The impugned judgment passed by the High Court is set aside.
  Further, liberty is granted to the respondent to challenge the
  order dated 20'h January, 2006 before the appropriate forum. In
  case such a challenge is made within a period of one month; the
  same may not be dismissed on the ground of delay. If such a
  challenge is made, having regard to the fact that the parties have
C been in litigation for more than a decade, we request the forum
  concerned to dispose of the matter expeditiously and preferably
  within a period of one year from the date of institution. [Paras
      7-9) [496-D-F, G-H; 497-A)

             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1749
 D    of 2008.

             From the Judgment and Order dated 07.12.2006 of the High
      Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Contempt Petition
      (C.O.C.P.) No.1286 of2005.
 E            Ms. Rachana Joshi Issar, Ms. Vandana Mishra, Ms. K. Vaijanthi,
      Advs. for the Appellant.

             Sameer Abhyankar (for M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co.), Karan
      Bharihoke, Vibhooti Malhotra, Kuldip Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
 F            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

              KURIAN, J. 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned
      order dated 7'h December, 2006 passed in C.O.C.P.No.1286 of 2005. It
      may be necessary to refer to the bare facts.
 G            2. The respondent No. I-contempt petitioner/allottee has
      approached the High Court with a grievance that the appellant-Punjab
      Urban Planning and Development Authority (for short "PUDA") through
      its successor Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (for short
      "GMADA") has charged excess rates for allotment of plots. Pursuant
 H
THE ESTATE OFFICER, PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT                       493
          AUTHORITY v. JAGTARSINGH [KURIAN,J.]

to the directions issued by the High Court, the rate was reduced from         A
Rs.3600/- to Rs.1400/- per square yard. Thereafter, the respondent-
contempt petitioner/allottee filed Civil Writ Petition No.2851 of2005 for
payment of interest which has been disposed of by judgment dated 21"
March, 2005. The judgment reads as follows:-

       "We have· heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The B
      petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article
      226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of
      mandamus directing the respondents to pay the interest upon the
      amount which has been refunded.
                                                                              c
       We are afraid that such kind of indulgence cannot be granted
      unless justice demand notice is served upon the respondents.

        Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the petition
      be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to serve justice demand
      notice upon the respondents. If such a notice is served upon the        D
      respondents within 15 days from today, the respondents shall take
      conscious and cautious decision thereon within two months from
      the receipt of a certified copy of this order.

        Disposed of."
                                                                              E
         3. Since there was no response from the PUDA within the time
stipulated by the High Court, the respondent-allottee filed Contempt
Petition No.1286 of2005. During the pendency of the Contempt Petition,
order dated 201l1 January,2006 was passed declining to grant interest
saying that there was no policy to make payment for interest. The order       F
reads as follows:-
          "To
           Col.Jagtar Singh (Retd.)
           D-89,D Block,
           Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar.                                           G

            No./2006/1677-78 dated20.01.2006

           . Subject: Regarding allotment of Plot No.69, Sector-
                      69, Mohali-CWP No.2851 of2005.
                                                                              H
494            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 6 S.C.R.


A                 In connection with the above cited subject it is intimated
            that PUDA doesn't have any policy according to which interest
            could be paid. Accordingly, the Justice Demand Notice sent by
            you has been filed after due consideration.
                                                                Sd/-
B                                                       Estate Officer,
                                                        PUDA, Mohali."


              4. It appears that the High Court directed the PUDA to file an
      affidavit on the following terms. The order reads as follows:-
·C
              " As requested by learned counsel for the respondents, adjourned
            to 25.09.2006.
              Meanwhile, the affidavit, if any, be filed explaining:-[i] what
            was the rate of interest charged from the petitioner;[ii] whether
            the said interest has been included in the refund made to the
 D
            petitioner in terms of the order passed by this Court; and [iii] why
            the respondents are not liable to pay interest on the refund amount.
              Affidavit, if any, be filed within one week from today."

               Accordingly, the Estate Officer, PUDA filed an affidavit. The
 E    affidavit reads as follows:-                  ,
              "I, the deponent above named do hereby solemnly affirm and
            state as under:-
               I. That the case mentioned supra had come up for hearing on
.F          1.8.2016, on which date, a direction for filing an affidavit on the
            issues mentioned therein, was made. Subsequently, by means of
            another order dated 9.10.2006, the matter was adjourned to
            7.12.2006 and the requisite affidavit was directed to be filed.
               2. That it is clarified that interest@ 15% p.a. was charged
 G          from the petitioner in consonance with the provisions of the
            Allotment letter. No interest has been paid on the refunded amount.
            The respondents are not liable to pay any interest on the refunded
            amount because no policy exists in PUDA for paying interest on
            the refund amount.

 H
THEESTATEOFFICER, PUNJABURBANPLANNING &DEVELOPMENT                            495
         AUTHORITY v. JAGTARSINGH [KURIAN,J.]

      3. That it is pertinent to mention here that in consonance with the     A
      orders dated 21.3.2005 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP
      No.2851 of2005, a letter dated 20.1.2006 was sent to the petitioner,
      wherein the decision of the Justice Demand Notice was conveyed
      to him. A copy of the same is appended herewith as Annexure
      CR-1.
                                                                             B
       4. That it is not out of place to mention here that the decision to
       reduce the amount payable by the petitioner, from Rs.3600/- to
       Rs.1400/- was made by the authorities themselves on 24.4.2003, ·
       on a representation having been made by the petitioner on
       15.03.2002 for being considered similarly as Subedar Anokh Singh
       in CWP No.11871 of 1997. The petitioner did not have to go c
       through any protracted litigation on that account. Accordingly,
       the amount of Rs.14,28, 713/- was immediately refunded to the
       petitioner on 20.06.2003 by means of Cheque No.057376. As
       such, PUDA is not liable to pay any interest on the same, more so
       in view of the fact that PUDA does not have any policy of paying D
       interest on any refund amount as also the fact that no such clause
     · for paying interest on refund amount exists in the Allotment letter."
       5. When the matter came up before the High Court in the
contempt jurisdiction, based on the affidavit, the following order was
~~:                                                                   .       E
                "The facts are hardly in dispute. It is admitted that the
      petitioner was charged interest@ 15% per annum but no interest
      has been paid on the refund amount "because no policy exists in
      PUDA for paying interest on the refund amount".
                 The plea taken by the respondents that the interest is       F
      not payable because there exists no policy, can neither be sustained
      in law nor in equity. Once, this Court found that the rate ofRs.3600/
      - fixed by PUDA for the plots in question was excessive and jt
      could not have been more than Rs.1400/- per sq.yard, there can
      be no exception but to hold that the petitioner was unauthorizedly      G
      charged at a higher rate. Admittedly, he paid interest @ 15% per
      annum. The respondents cannot take advantage of their own
      wrongs. The petitioner, therefore, is entitled for the refund of the
      excess amount at the same rate of interest which he had paid to
      the respondents.
                                                                              H
496            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 6 S.C.R.


A                     At the same time, there being a serious dispute with
            regard to the interpretation of the orders passed by this Court,
            respondents cannot be said to be guilty ofwillfal and deliberate
            breach of such orders.
                       Consequently, this petition is disposed of with a
B           clarificatory direction that on the excess amount, which has already
            been refanded to the petitioner, he shall be paid interest @ 15%
            per annum, within a period of three months from the date of receipt
            of a certified copy of this order.
                      Rule discharged."
 c           6. Aggrieved the Estate Officer, Greater Mohali Area
      Development Authority has filed this appeal.
            7.Having heard learned counsel appearing on both sides, we do
  not think it necessary to refer to the contentions or to the legal position
  except to reiterate the settled position that normally in a contempt
D jurisdiction the Court shall not enterupon adjudication of a dispute. Maybe
  the applicant in a contempt petitioh is entitled to some relief but relief
  has to be granted after proper adjudication of the dispute because only
  after a proper adjudication, it will be clear as to what will be the actual
  relief, if any and ifat all, that has to be granted to the aggrieved person.
E Apparently, in the instant case, no such adjudication has been made
  except to pass an order in equity. The situation would have been different
   had it been a case of mere implementation or execution of an otherwise
  clear order or direction, In the instant case there is no decree or order
  on entitlement for interest.
              8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel
 F
      appearing for the appellant, we.are of the view that this matter needs
      adjudication regarding the entitlement of interest. Therefore, without
      expressing any opinion on the various submissions made by the counsel
      on both sides, we set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High
      Court.
 G
              9. Further, fiberty is granted to the respondent to challenge the
      order dated 20'h January, 2006 before the appropriate forum. We,
      therefore, make it clear that in case such. a challenge is made within a
      period of one month from today, the same may not be dismissed on the
      ground of delay. If such a challenge is made, having regard to the fact
 H
THE ESTATE OFFICER, PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT                          497
          AUTHORITY v. JAGTAR SINGH [KURIAN, J.]


that the parties have been in litigation for more than a decade, we request      A
the forum concerned to dispose of the matter expeditiously and preferably
within a period of one year from the date of institution. Needless also to
say that it will be open to the parties to raise all contentions which are
available to them as per law.
          lO. The civil appeal is disposed of in the above terms.                B


Devika Gujral                                              Appeal disposed of.