LexSTATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS versus DHANJIT SINGH SANDHU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 1121
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
v.
DHANJIT SINGH SANDHU
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5698-5699 of 2009)
MARCH 14, 2014
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.)
A
B
Punjab Urban Estate (Development and Regulation)
Rules, 1964: r.14 - Non-completion of building within time
prescribed from the date iof issue of the allotment letter -
C
Demand of non-construction fee/extension fee - Held: In the
instant case, allottee having failed to abide by the terms and
conditions and did not raise construction, he was liable to pay
non-construction fee/extension fee which was demanded from
him in order to enable him to avoid resumption of the plot to o
the appellant-authority.
Approtate and reprobate: Allotment letter - Specific
condition that non-construction of building would lead to
resumption of the plot under the provisions of the Acts and
the Rules - Non compliance of - Demand raised for payment
E
of non-construction fee/extension fee - In order to avoid
resumption of the plot by the Authority, allottee paid the
extension fee - After availing the benefit of extension on
payment of extension fee, allottee sent a letter to the Estate
Officer demanding refund of the extension fee on the basis
F
of amended Rule 13 of 1995 Rules - Held: The defaulting
allottee cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate by first
agreeing to abide by terms and conditions of allotment and
later denying their liability as per t/1e agreed terms - It is settled
proposition of law that once an order has been passed which
G
is complied with, accepted by the other party who derived the
benefit out of it, he cannot subsequently challenge it on any
ground - Punjab Regional and Town Planning and
Development (General) Rules 1995.
1121
H
1122
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 3 S.C.R.
A
Doctrines/Principles: Doctrine of election - Held: Is based
on the rule of estoppel, the principle that one cannot
approbate and reprobate is inherent in it - The doctrine of
estoppel by election is one among the species of estoppel
in pais (or equitable estoppel), which is a rule of equity - By
B this law, a person may be precluded, by way of his actions,
or conduct, or silence when it is his duty to speak, from
asserting a right which he would have otherwise had.
The respondent was allotted a plot. In terms of
allotment letter, the respondent was required to complete
C the construction of building within three years from the
date of issuance of the allotment letter after getting the
plans of the proposed building approved by the
competent Authority. As per Clause 15 of the allotment
letter, the allotment was subject to the provisions of
D Punjab Estates (Development and Regulation Act), 1964
and the Rules and Policies framed thereunder. In the year
1995, the State of Punjab came up with the legislation
known as Punjab Regional and Town Planning and
Development Act, 1995. By the said Act, the Punjab Urban
E Estate (Development and Regulation) Act 1964 and
Punjab Housing Development Board Act, 1972 were
repealed. In exercise of power conferred under the Act,
the State Government framed Rules called the Punjab
Regional and Town Planning and Development (General)
F Rules 1995. Rule 13 of the Rules specified the time within
which the building is required to be constructed. It also
provided tor extension of time limit subject to payment
of prescribed fee mentioned therein.
The Punjab Urban Planning and Development
G Authority ('PUDA') issued a circular dated 15.1.1998
revising the rate of extension fee chargeable for the
residential and commercial plots and by the said circular
a very high rate of extension fee was proposed to be
charged. The respondent from time to time deposited the
H extension fee as demanded by the appellant.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS v. DHANJIT
1123
SINGH SANDHU
The respondent filed a writ petition on the ground
A
that an amount of Rs.1.20 lacs has been in excess
charged from the respondent and praying inter alia for
the directions to refund the excess fee charged from the
respondent. The court directed the appellant to
reconsider the representation and to dispose of the same
B
in the light of the order passed in Tehal Singh's case. In
compliance with the said directions, the respondent's
representation was considered and came to be rejected
on 23.12.2004 on the ground that in the facts and
circumstances of the case the instant case was not c
similar to Tehal SinghExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.