LexTHE ESTATE OFFICER, PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus JAGTAR SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 491 THE ESTATE OFFICER, PUNJAB A URBAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. JAGTAR SINGH AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1749 of 2008) JULY 19,2017 [KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] B Contempt jurisdiction - Respondent no. I challenged the excess rates for allotment of plots - Pursuant to direction of High Court, rates were reduced - Respondent filed writ petition for C payment of interest which was disposed of with directions to issue justice demand notice upon the authorities and on service of such notice, authorities to take decision within two months from receipt of certified copy of the order - Authorities did not respond - Respondent-allottee flied contempt petition - Meanwhile, authorities D passed order dated 20'h January, 2006 declining grant of interest to the respondent-allottee saying that there was no policy to make payment for interest - When matter came up before High Court in the contempt jurisdiction, High Court directed authorities to pay interest@ 15% p.a. - Challenged by Estate ojjicer - Held: Normally in a contempt jurisdiction the Court should not enter upon adjudication of a dispute - Jn the instant case, no such adjudication was made except to pass an order in equity - This matter needs to E be adjudicated regarding the entitlement of interest - Impugned judgment passed by the High Court set aside - Further, liberty granted to the respondent to challenge order dated 2()1h January; F 2006 before the appropriate forum. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: Normally in a contempt jurisdiction the Court shall not enter upon adjudication of a dispute. Maybe the applicant in a contempt petition is entitled to some relief but relief has to be G granted after proper adjudication of the dispute because only after a proper adjudication, it is clear as to what will be the actual relief, if any and if at all, that has to be granted to the aggrieved person. Apparently, in the instant case, no such adjudication has been 491 H 492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R. A made except to pass an order in equity. The situation would have been different had it been a case of mere implementation or execution of an otherwise clear order or direction. In the instant case there is no decree or order on entitlement for interest. The matter needs adjudication regarding the entitlement of interest. B The impugned judgment passed by the High Court is set aside. Further, liberty is granted to the respondent to challenge the order dated 20'h January, 2006 before the appropriate forum. In case such a challenge is made within a period of one month; the same may not be dismissed on the ground of delay. If such a challenge is made, having regard to the fact that the parties have C been in litigation for more than a decade, we request the forum concerned to dispose of the matter expeditiously and preferably within a period of one year from the date of institution. [Paras 7-9) [496-D-F, G-H; 497-A) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1749 D of 2008. E F G H From the Judgment and Order dated 07.12.2006 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Contempt Petition (C.O.C.P.) No.1286 of2005. Ms. Rachana Joshi Issar, Ms. Vandana Mishra, Ms. K. Vaijanthi, Advs. for the Appellant. Sameer Abhyankar (for M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co.), Karan Bharihoke, Vibhooti Malhotra, Kuldip Singh, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KURIAN, J. 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 7'h December, 2006 passed in C.O.C.P.No.1286 of 2005. It may be necessary to refer to the bare facts. 2. The respondent No. I-contempt petitioner/allottee has approached the High Court with a grievance that the appellant-Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (for short "PUDA") through its successor Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (for short "GMADA") has charged excess rates for allotment of plots. Pursuant THE ESTATE OFFICER, PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 493 AUTHORITY v. JAGTARSINGH [KURIAN,J.] to the directions issued by the High Court, the rate was reduced from A Rs.3600/- to Rs.1400/- per square yard. Thereafter, the respondent- contempt petitioner/allottee filed Civil Writ Petition No.2851 of2005 for payment of interest which has been disposed of by judgment dated 21" March, 2005. The judgment reads as follows:- "We have· heard the learned counsel for the petitio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.