STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. versus MEWA SINGH

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 216 · Decided: 23-03-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. 
v. 
MEWA SINGH 
MARCH 23. 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
URBAN DEVELUPMENT: 
Scheme for allotment of plots-In lieu of land acquired by the State-·· 
C Claim for allotment by co-sharer--Writ Petition on the question of entitlement 
of group of co-sharers-- No relief granted for the co-sharer in question-
Application of co-sharer for allotment agreeing to prevalent rate of land-
Allotment made-Rate of land questioned in Writ Petition----High Court granting 
relief directing the rate prevalent in 1985 to be applied--.Qn appeal. held: The 
D co-sharer could not question the rate of land as he was not entitled to the 
relief given in the earlier proceedings before the court because therein no 
relief was granted tu him-He had also agreed to pay the prevalent rate. 
Appellants had framed a scheme for allotment of residentiirl plots 
E to the eligible persons whose land was acquired for urban development 
Respondent claiming to be co-sharer to the extent of I/4th in a piece of 
land, made application in 1980 to the effect that he alone was entitled to 
the plot under the scheme. 
On the question of entitlement of a group of co-sharers a Writ 
F Petition was filed before High Court wherein respondent herein was one 
of the appellants. Therein no relief was granted to some of the Writ 
Petitioners including the respondent herein as no relief was claimed qua 
them. In appeal thereagainst, no discussion was made qua the respondent 
herein in view of the fact that his case was not pressed before the High 
G Court. In appeal to this Court also no relief was granted to him. 
H 
Respondent applied for allotment with the appellant. In the affidavit 
accompanying its letter, the respondent had indicated that he was 
agreeable to the prevalent rates of Punjab Urban Planning and 
216 
-
STATE OF PUNJAB v. MEWA SINGH [PASAYAT, J.) 
217 
Development (PUDA). Accordingly in 2001 allotment letter was issued A 
fixing the rate. Respondent filed Writ Petition, questioning the rate fixed. 
High Court granted relief directing the rate prevalent in 1985 was to be 
applied. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: I. The judgment of the High Court is unsustainable on 
several counts. The first fallacy in the High Court's judgment is that it 
proceeded on the assumption that in the earlier Writ Petition relief had 
been granted to the respondent. On the contrary High Court's order 
clearly indicates that no relief was claimed so far as the present respondent C 
is concerned. Therefore, the question of respondent being entitled to relief 
given to other writ-petitioners and the respondents in the civil appeal 
before this Court does not arise. The respondent himself in the affidavit 
accompanying the letter had clearly indicated that he was agreeable to 
the prevalent rates of PUDA. 1219-D-F] 
D 
2. In case the respondent deposits the amount payable pursuant to 
the allotment letter within three months from the date of the judgment, 
the appellants shall allot the land and deliver possession. 1219-H; 220-A) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4006 of2004. E 
From the Judgment and Final Order dated 17. 7 .2003 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 12393/2001. 
Altaf Ahmed and Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar for the Appellants. 
F 
Manoj Swamp, Neeraj Sharma, Naresh Kaushal, Dinesh Verma, Ms. 
Suresh Kumari, A.P. Mohanty, G.K. Bansal (N.P:), R.K. Talwar, S.S. Virk, 
Amit Talwar and S.L. Aneja for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment 
rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court directing 
appellants to allot a plot to the respondent at the rate which was prevalent in 
G 
the year 1985. It was, however, directed that respondent has to pay interest H 
218 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 3 S.C.R. 
A @ 12% from 1985 upto the date of actual payment after adjustment of 
Rs.13,700/- which had already been paid as sale consideration. The order was 
passed in a writ petition filed by the respondent seeking a direction to the 
present appellants to modify the price indicated in the allotment letter dated 
13.7.2001. The rate indicated was Rs.3,200/- per square yard. 
B 
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:-
The appellants acquired land belonging to several persons for the purpose 
of urban development of SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab). The award was mad
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.