GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. versus MANJU JAIN. & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 134 · Decided: 19-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2010] 10 S.C.R. 134 
A 
GREATER MOHALi AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & 
ANR. 
v. 
MANJU JAIN. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6791 of 2010) 
B 
AUGUST 19, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Contract - Allotment of house - Failure on. the part of 
C allottee in accepting the allotment and depositing money in 
terms of the allotment within stipulated time - Cancellation 
of allotment -
Challenged - High Court quashed the 
cancellation order holding that the allotment Jetter was not 
served at the correct address -
On appeal, held: -
D Cancellation was justified - Allottee having failed in giving 
acceptance to allotment and in· depositing moneyin terms of 
the ·allotment underrthe hire-purchase scheme, no concluded 
contract came into existence between the .parties - Plea of 
failure 'to serve notice being a new plea before court not 
E acceptable -
HOLf~ing. 
F 
Plea - Raising of new plea - Before a writ court -
Permissibility- H~ld: A new plea on facts ormixed question 
of fact and law cannot be raised before a writ court -
Constitution of lnilia, 1950 - Article 226. 
Respondent No. 1 applied to the appellant-Authority 
for allotment of a flat under the hire- purchase scheme. 
One flat was allocated to her. Thereafter the Authority 
issued the letter of allotment to her, seeking her 
G acceptance for the allotment and asking her to deposit 
certain amount within the stipulated time. Respondent 
No. 1 did not respond to the letter. After about four years 
from the date of allotment, when she made a query, she 
was informed that her allotment had' been cancelled on 
H 
134 
GREATER MOHALi AREA DEVELOPMENT 
135 
AUTHORITY v. MANJU JAIN 
her failure to deposit the amount pursuant to the 
A 
allotment letter. 
Respondent No. 1 made an appeal before the 
statutory authority challenging the order, of cancellation. 
The appeal was dismissed. The order was affirmed by the 
8 
revisional authority. Respondent No. 1 challenged th!:l 
orders passed by the authorities in a writ petition. The 
same was allowed by the High Court quashing the orders 
passed by the authorities and holding that the notice of 
allotment was sent to an incorrect person and to the 
incorrect address. The instant appeal was filed by the 
C 
appellant-Authority . 
.. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court allowed the writ petition, 
0 
without examining the entire record placed before it only 
on the ground that the dispatch register did not contain 
the correct name and address· of respondent No.1. The 
writ petition was allowed without giving any proper 
opportunity to the appellants to file a reply and produce 
E 
material to controvert the averments made in the writ 
petition. The High Court failed to note that the appellants 
had taken a specific plea that the letter of allotment had 
been communicated to respondent No. 1 by Registered 
Post. Therefore, the High Court ought to have examined 
F 
the issue in the correct perspective, as respondent No. 
1 had not controverted the plea taken by the appellants 
of sending the allotment letter by Registered Post. [Paras 
16, 17, 21 and 25] [145-C-E; 147-A] 
Harihar Banerjee vs. Ramshashi Roy AIR 1918 PC 102; 
G 
A(Tst. L.M.$.Ummu Saleema vs. 8.8.Gujral and Anr. AIR 
1981 SC 1191; C.C. Alavi Haji vs. Palapetty Muhammed 
and Anr. (2007) 6 SCC 555; Gujarat Electricity Board and 
Anr. vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani AIR 1989 SC 1433; 
ChiefCommissioner of Income Tax (Admn.) Bangalore vs. 
H 
136 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 
A V.K. Gururaj and Ors.(1996) 7 SCC 275; Poonam Verma 
and Ors. vs. Delhi Development Authority (2007) 13 SCC 
154; Sarav Investment and Financial Consultancy Private 
Limited and Anr. vs. Llyods Register of Shipping Indian Office 
StaffProvident Fund and Anr. (2007) 14 SCC 753; Union of 
B India vs. S. P. Singh (2008) 5 SCC 438; Municipal 
Corporation, Ludhiana vs. lnderjit Singh and Anr. (2008) 13 
SCC 506; V.N. Bharat vs. Delhi Development Authority and 
Anr. AIR 2009 SC 1233 - referred to 
2.1 The fact that respondent No. 1 had not received 
C the allotment letter was neither pleaded before the 
appellate authority nor before the revisional authority. 
Thus, there was no occasion for either of the said 
authorities to record a finding on this factual aspect 
Respondent No. 1, before the revisional authority, took 
D the plea that due to financial difficulty, she could not 
arrange the money to be paid within the stipulated time. 
This impliedly amounts t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.