PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEV. AUTHORITY & ORS. versus RAGHU NATH GUPTA & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 8 S.C.R. 118 · Decided: 16-08-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 8 S.C.R. 118 
A 
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEV. AUTHORITY & ORS. 
v. 
B 
RAGHU NATH GUPTA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5887 of 2012 etc.) 
AUGUST 16, 2012 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] 
URBAN DEVELOPMENT: 
c 
Allotment of commercial plots in auction by Urban 
Development Authority - On 'as is where is' basis - Allottee 
accepting the same - Allottee taking the instalment facility for 
payment of the cost of the site - Allotment letter stipulating 
for interest, penal interest and penalty for delayed payment 
0 of instalment - Writ petition by allottee seeking direction to 
the Authority not to charge interest on the instalments till the 
basic amenities were provided on the site - Writ allowed by 
High Court - On appeal, held: The allottee having accepted 
the allotment on 'as is where is' basis, is estopped from 
E seeking basic amenities from the Authority - On facts, there 
was not much delay in providing the basis amenities by the 
Authority - Therefore, allottee liable to pay the interest, penal 
interest and penalty on account of delayed payment of 
instalments. 
F 
The question for consideration in the present 
appeals was whether the respondents were legally 
obliged to pay the interest, penal interest and penalty on 
account of delayed payment of instalments after having 
accepted the allotment of commercial plots by way of 
G auction. 
H 
The High Court, in the impugned order had taken the 
view that since there was delay on the part of the 
appellant-Authority in providing the basic amenities in 
118 
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEV. AUTHORITY v. 
119 
RAGHU NATH GUPTA 
time, it could not have legally claimed the interest, penal 
A 
interest and penalty on account of delayed payment of 
instalments. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: The High Court was not justified in holding 
B 
that the respondents were not liable to pay the interest, 
penal interest and penalty for the belated payment of 
installments. The respondents had accepted the 
commercial plots with the open eyes, subject to the terms 
and conditions stipulated in the auction Notification. C 
Evidently, the commercial plots were allotted on "as is 
where is" basis. The allottees would have ascertained the 
facilities available at the time of auction and after having 
accepted the commercial plots on "as is where is" basis, 
they cannot be heard to contend that the appellant-
D 
Authority had not provided the basic amenities like 
parking, lights, roads, water, sewerage etc. If the allottees 
were not interested in taking the commercial plots on "as 
is where is" basis, they should not have accepted the 
allotment and after having accepted the allotment on "as 
E 
is where is" basis, they are estopped from contending 
that the basic amenities were not provided by the 
appellant-Authority when the plots were allotted. The facts 
would clearly indicate that there was not much delay on 
the part of the appellant-Authority to provide those 
F 
facilities as well. [Paras 12 and 15] [125-8-E; 127-F] 
Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and Ors. v. 
Shantikunj Investment (P) Ltd. 2006 (4) SCC 109: 2006 (2) 
SCR 768; UT Chandigarh Administration and Anr. v. 
Amerjeet Singh and Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 660: 2009 (4) 
G 
SCR 541- relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
2006 (2) SCR 768 
Relied on 
Para 12 
H 
I 
A 
120 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2012] 8 S.C.R. 
2009 (4) SCR 541 
Relied on 
Para 12 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
5887 of 2012. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 5: 11.2008 of the High 
B Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition 
6929 of 2007. 
c 
D 
WITH 
C.A.No. 5888 of 2012. 
Rachana Joshi lssar, Nidhi Tiwari, Ambreen Rasool for the 
Appellants. 
P.S. Patwalia, Tushar Bakshi, Raja! Singh, Arnita Gupta, 
Jagjit Singh Chhabra for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The questions raised in both these appeals are the 
E same, hence, we are disposing of both the appeals by a 
common judgment. 
3. The question that has come up for consideration in 
these appeals is whether the respondents are legally obliged 
F to pay the interest, penal interest and penalty on account of the 
delayed payment of installments after having accepted the 
allotment of commercial plots by way of auction. The High Court 
has taken the view that since there was delay on the part of 
the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (for short 
G "PUDA") in p

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.