FULJIT KAUR versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 7 S.C.R. 317 · Decided: 03-06-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2010] 7 S.C.R. 317 
FULJIT KAUR 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5292 of 2004) 
JUNE 3, 2010 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
. Punjab Urban Estate (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965: 
A 
B 
rr. 2(aaj, 2(e), 4, 5-A - 'Additional price', 'tentative price', c 
'sale price' and 'liability to pay additional price' - 'Provisional 
. price' and 'tentative price' - Connotation of - Allotment of plot 
in haste - Allottee asked. to deposit 'provisional price' -
Subsequently, demand raised for additional price - High 
Court upholding the demand notice - HELD: There is a 0 
difference between 'provisional price' and 'tentative price' and 
it may take a long time for the State to determine the tentative 
price - There is nothing in the scheme of the Act or the Rules 
indicating that a person to whom the plot has been allotted 
· cannot be aske.d to pay the 'tentative price'"""'. Further, the sale E 
. price in the cases covered by the land acquisition Act is the 
aggregate of the tentative price and, the 'additional price' 
which is attributable to the enhanced compensation awarded 
by the reference court - High Court has rightly relied upon 
the case of Preeta Singh wherein Supreme Court upheld the 
'sale price' as determined under r.4 
F 
· Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulation) 
Act, 1964: 
Urban Development - Housing - Constitution of India, 
G 
1950 - Articles 14 and 136. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 136 - Dismissal of SLP in limine - HELD: Does 
317 
H 
318 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010) 7 S.C.R. 
A 
not operate as res judicata - Nor does it mean that the 
judgment of High Court has been affirmed - Nor can the 
impugned judgment be said to have merged with such a 
dismissal order passed by Supreme Court - An order 
rejecting a special leave petition at the threshold without 
B detailed reasons therefor does not constitute any declaration 
of law or a binding precedent - Punjab Urban Estate (Sale of 
Sites) Rules, 1965 - Doctrine of merger - Precedents. 
Article 14 - Equality before law - HELD: Is a trite, which 
C cannot be claimed in illegality and, therefore, cannot be 
claimed by a citizen or enforced by a court in a negative 
manner - A wrong decision in favour of any particular party 
does not entitle any other party to claim its benefits - Punjab 
Urban Estate (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965. 
D 
The appellant applied on 23.2.1987 for allotment of a 
residential plot in an urban area. On 25.2.1987, an 
allotment letter allotting a 400 sq. yard plot was issued 
to the appellant asking her to deposit the "provisional 
price". Subsequently, by letter dated 25.3.1992 the 
E additional demand was made. The allottee filed a writ 
petition before the High Court challenging the additional 
demand as arbitrary and unreasonable. The High Court 
upheld the demand notice. 
F 
In the instant appeal filed by the allottee, it was 
contended for the appellant that the High Court 
committed an error in dismissing the writ petition of the 
appellant and relying upon the judgment of the Supreme 
Court in Preeta Singh's case1. It was submitted that in the 
case of D.S. Laungia2 such unreasonable and arbitrary 
G demand was quashed by the High Court and the said 
judgment attained finality as the special leave petition 
1. 
Preeta Singh & Ors. vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors. 1996 
(1) Suppl. scR 621 = (1996) a sec 756. 
2. 
D.S. Laungia & Anr. vs. The State of Punjab & Ors. AIR 1993 Pub. & Har. 
H 
54. 
FULJIT KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
319 
preferred by the State against the said judgment was A 
withdrawn; that pursuant to the direction of the Supreme 
Court, though the additional price was determined, but 
no recovery was made from D.S. Laungia and, therefore, 
the appeal deserved to be allowed. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
1.1. There is a difference between the "provisional 
price" and the "tentative price" and it may take a long time 
for the State to determine the tentative price. A perusal 
B 
of rr. 2(aa), 2(e), 4 and 5-A of the Punjab Urban Estate C 
(Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965 shows that the "tentative price" 
means the price determined by the State Government 
from time to time in respect of a sale of site by allotment 
and while doing so, the Government has to ,take into 
consideration various factors including the a~ount paid D 
as compensation; the phrase "additional price" has been 
defined as the price determined by the State Government 
having regard to the e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.