JAGMOHAN SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 7 S.C.R. 117 · Decided: 29-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008]6S.C.R.117 
JAGMOHAN SINGH 
II. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal· No. 3044 of 2008) 
APRIL 29, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Urban Development: 
A 
B 
Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development c 
Authority Act, 1995 - s. 45(3) and ( 4 )- Draw of lots for allotment 
of plots - Failure to deposit balance amount by successful 
applicant - Forfeiture of earnest. money - Challenge to -
Rejected by forum below as a/so courts below - On appeal, 
held: In terms of letter of intent, failure to deposit the amount 0 
within the stipulated period entails in forfeiture of earnest money 
- s. 45(3) and (4) requiring compliance of principles of natural 
iustice not applicable since applicant not a transferee -
However, Estate Officer did not consider that applicant had 
applied for transfer on which no order was passed - Revisional 
Authority rejected the revision application in view of ban order E 
by Development Authority to receive any payment regarding 
allotment of plots - In an almost similar situation, Revision a I 
Authority had granted extension - In terms.of the order by this 
Court, applicant has undertaken to deposit the amount as and 
when directed - Plot may be assigned if revision application F 
is allowed - On facts, in the interest of justice, matter remitted 
to Revisional Authority for consideration of applicant's case 
afresh. 
The first respondent invited applications for allotment G · 
of freehold residential plots. In terms of the brochure, the 
successful applicant was to deposit 15% of the amount 
within 60 days of the date of issuance of letter of intent. 
The said period could be further extend.ed by 30 days. In 
117 
H 
118 
SUPREME COUHT REPORTS 
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 
A case the refusal to accept the offer of allotment was 
received after 90 days of issuance of letter of intent, the 
entire money deposited was to be forfeited. Appellant 
applied for allotment of plot and deposited the earnest 
money. He was successful at the draw of lots. A letter of 
B intent was issued. Appellant sought permission to 
mortgage the plot but the same was rejected. He sought 
another permission but he was not communicated the 
result. Appellant did not deposit the balance amount. The 
Estate Officer by letter dated 13.1.2002 cancelled the letter 
c of intent and forfeited the earnest money. Appellant filed 
Revision Application and the same was dismissed. In the 
Review application no etrder was passed. Thereafter, he 
filed writ petition but the same was dismissed. Appellant 
then filed Review Petition on the ground that in several 
0 cases first respondent had granted opportunity to large 
number of people to deposit balance of 15% amount even 
after the period of 60 days. High Court held that the review 
was not maintainable as the said documents came to the 
knowledge of appellant only after the decision in writ 
petition. Hence the present appeal. 
E 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The appellant did not deposit the 15% of 
the amount of tentative price of the plot within 60 days 
from the issuance of letter of intent. In terms of clause (9) 
F of the letter of intent, 1failure on his part would entail 
forfeiture of the earnest money. Sub-sections (3) and (4) 
of s. 45 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and 
Development Authority A.ct, 1995 may not be stricto sensu 
applicable as the principles of natural justice, were 
G required to be complied with only in the cases of 
transferees. [Paras 12 and 13] [126-G; 127-A, B] 
1.2 It appears that in terms of the office order dated 
• 13.11.2002, the earnest money was directed to be forfeited 
H 
1 only on the premise that he did not comply with the terms 
I 
• 
JAGMOHAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
119 
-. r 
of the letters of intent. The Estate Officer did not take into A 
_, 
consideration the fact that the appellant had applied for 
transfer. He had also sought for extension of time to 
deposit the amount. Extension was granted upto 8.6.2001. 
It appears that further extension was also granted upto 
'> 
31.10.2001. However, no order was passed on his B 
A. 
application for transfer. Admittedly, no show cause notice 
was issued. The order passed by the Estate Officer was a 
revisable one. The Revisional Authority rejected the 
revision application, inter alia, upon taking into 
consideration a purported order of ban issued by PUDA c 
to receive any payment with regard to the allotment of 
plots in sectors 76-8
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.