HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR versus JAGDEEP SINGH

Citation: [2023] 4 S.C.R. 1156 · Decided: 08-05-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1156
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 1156
1156
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.
v.
JAGDEEP SINGH
Civil Appeal No. 4709 of 2011
MAY 08, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
Cost: Imposition of, for filing frivolous litigation – On facts,
appellant demanding additional price for plot allotted to the
respondent – Said land was transferred by the Animal Husbandry
Department to the appellants and the rate at which the land was
transferred was revised – Suit filed by the respondent challenging
the demand of additional price – Courts below set aside the demand
of the additional price of the plot allotted to the respondent in
accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the allotment
letter – On appeal, held: There is no illegality in the order passed
by the courts below in setting aside the demand of the additional
price of the plot allotted to the respondent – Appellant was in
knowledge of the matter on similar issue decided on merits by this
Court way back in 2005 – Said suit was contested and decreed in
2008, thereafter, appeal was preferred by the appellant before the
first appellate court, then High Court and thereafter, before this
Court – Case is a frivolous litigation filed by the appellants, where
the officers shirk to take responsibility – For filing frivolous appeal,
and for wasting the time of the Courts at different levels, cost of Rs
1,00,000/- imposed on the appellant which is to be deposited with
the Supreme Court Mediation Centre – Respondent having been
dragged in unnecessary litigation upto this Court to be awarded
cost of Rs 50,000/- – Appellants would recover the said amount
from the guilty officers/officials who opined the case to be fit for
filing appeal at different levels despite being covered by judgment
of this Court.
Judicial deprecation : Conduct of the litigants in flooding
this Court with frivolous litigation – Is deprecated.
Sanjay Gera vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority
& Anr. (2005) 3 SCC 207 – relied on.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1157
Sabaji Naik & Ors. vs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar &
Ors. (2017) 5 SCC 496 : [2017] 2 SCR 95; ICOMM
Tele Ltd. Vs. Punjab State Water Supply and Sewerage
Board and Ors. (2019) 4 SCC 401 : [2019] 2 SCR 984
– referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2017] 2 SCR 95
referred to
Para 14
[2019] 2 SCR 984
referred to
Para 15
(2005) 3 SCC 207
relied on
Para 20
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4709
of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.2009 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 1449 of 2009.
Samar Vijay Singh, Keshav Mittal, Ms. Amrita Verma, Ms. Sabarni
Som, Advs. for the Appellants.
S. N. Jha, K. N. Jha, S. K. Mishra, Mrs. Revathy Raghavan,
Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
1. The Order dated 28.10.2009 passed by the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in RSA No. 1449 of 2009 has been challenged in the present
appeal. By the aforesaid order, the appeal filed by the Appellants was
dismissed and concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Trial Court
as well as by the First Appellate Court were upheld.
2. The dispute pertains to demand of additional price for the
allotment of plot to the Respondent.
3. The Respondent was allotted plot no.1084 in Sector-14, (Part),
Hisar vide allotment letter dated 21.08.1986 @ 224.90 per sq. yard.
4. Notice was issued to the Respondent by the Appellants on
15.01.1993 raising demand of additional price as well as to show cause
as to why the plot should not be resumed on account of non-construction
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. v.
JAGDEEP SINGH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1158
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
within a period of two years of allotment. The aforesaid notice was
followed by subsequent notices and the last being dated 28.01.2002.
5. A civil suit was filed by the Respondent on 01.10.2003
challenging the demand raised by the present Appellants. The same was
decreed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appellant filed appeal which
was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. The Appellants did not
succeed even before the High Court.
6. The learned Trial Court accepted the plea raised by the
respondent on the ground that in terms of the conditions contained in the
letter of allotment, the demand of additional price could be raised only in
case of enhancement in cost of land by the competent authority under
Land Acquisition Act. As in the case in hand, there is no enhancement in
cost
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.