HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR versus JAGDEEP SINGH on 8 May 2023

1. The Order dated 28.10.2009 passed by the Punjab and HaryanaHigh Court in RSA No. 1449 of 2009 has been challenged in the presentappeal. By the aforesaid order, the appeal filed by the Appellants wasdismissed and concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Trial Courtas well as by the First Appellate Court were upheld.

2. The dispute pertains to demand of additional price for theallotment of plot to the Respondent.

3. The Respondent was allotted plot no.1084 in Sector-14, (Part),Hisar vide allotment letter dated 21.08.1986 @ 224.90 per sq. yard.

4. Notice was issued to the Respondent by the Appellants on15.01.1993 raising demand of additional price as well as to show causeas to why the plot should not be resumed on account of non-construction A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Awithin a period of two years of allotment. The aforesaid notice wasfollowed by subsequent notices and the last being dated 28.01.2002.

5. A civil suit was filed by the Respondent on 01.10.2003challenging the demand raised by the present Appellants. The same wasdecreed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appellant filed appeal whichBwas dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. The Appellants did notsucceed even before the High Court.

6. The learned Trial Court accepted the plea raised by therespondent on the ground that in terms of the conditions contained in theletter of allotment, the demand of additional price could be raised only inCcase of enhancement in cost of land by the competent authority underLand Acquisition Act. As in the case in hand, there is no enhancement incost of land awarded by any Court or authority, therefore, no additionaldemand could be raised.

7. The argument raised by learned counsel for the Appellants isDthat the land in question was transferred by the Animal HusbandryDepartment, Haryana to the Appellants @ 1,21,000/- per acre.However, later on the rate was revised to 3,00,000/- per acre. Onfailure, the Appellants were not to be given possession of the land. Theallotments had been made by the Appellants on 21.08.1986 @ 224.90.EInitially when the plot was allotted to the Respondent, calculation ofprice was made taking the cost of the land at 1,21,000/- per acre.However, later on the cost was increased to 3,00,000/- per acre, anadditional price was demanded. The price of the plot was worked out at301.70 sq. yard and the additional demand was raised from theRespondent @76.80 per sq.yd. It was also stated in the notice thatFthough the cost of development charges has been increased in the last 5to 6 years, however still the Appellants will bear the same. As the costof the land to the Appellants increased, the same had to be borne by theallottees. The Appellants being non-profitable Organisation.

8. It was further stated in the notice that in case the RespondentGis not ready to accept the allotment of plot on payment of an additionalprice, he may get his deposit back alongwith interest @ 10% p.a.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent pleadedthat in the case in hand, one of the condition in the letter of allotmentwas that the price of the plot was tentative; the additional price can beH

demanded only on account of increase in cost of land awarded by thecompetent authority under the Land Acquisition Act. It is admitted caseof the Appellant that the land on which the plot in question was carvedout was not acquired rather it was transferred by the Animal HusbandryDepartment of the State to the Appellants. The price thereof wasdetermined at the time of transfer, however, in case later on differentprice is determined, the allottees cannot be made to bear the increasedcost.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the recordand relevant documents.

11. The fact that a plot was allotted to the Respondent videallotment letter dated 21.08.1986 at the cost of 224.90 per sq. yard,is not in dispute. It is also the admitted case of the appellant that theland on which the plot was carved out was initially owned by the AnimalHusbandry Department of the State which was transferred to theappellant. The initial price was fixed as 1,12,000/- per acre. The costof plot was calculated including the cost of development and allotmentswere made. It transpires from the record that later on, the rate atwhich 275.5 acres of land of Animal Husbandry Department wastransferred to the Appellants was revised to 3,00,000/- per acre.Whether burden of additional cost of the land could be put on the plotholders, was the issue before the Courts below. The relevant clause ascontained in the letter of allotment regarding demand of additional priceis extracted below:

“Clause 9 : The above price is tentative to the extend that anyenhancement in the cost of land awarded by the competentauthority under the Land Acquisition Act shall also be payableproportionately as determined by the authority the additionalprice determined shall paid within 30 days of its demand.”

12. The aforesaid clause was interpreted by all the courts belowto mean that the additional price can be demanded in case there isenhancement in cost of the land awarded by the competent authorityunder the Land Acquisition Act. It is the admitted case of the Appellantsthat the land for allotment of the plot was never acquired. Hence, therecould not be any enhancement in the cost of the land by any authority orcourt under the Land Acquisition Act.

AB

CD

E

F

G

H

A13. From these undisputed facts on record and the terms andconditions contained in the allotment letter, there is no illegalitycommitted by the learned court below in setting aside the demand ofthe additional price of the plot allotted to the Respondent. There is nomerit in the present appeal. The same deserves to be dismissed.Ordered accordingly.B

A

14. For filing the present frivolous appeal, in our opinion, theAppellants deserve to be burdened with heavy cost. This Court haddeprecated the conduct of the litigants in flooding this Court with frivolouslitigations, which are choking the dockets as a result of which the matters,which require consideration are delayed. Observations made inDynandeoCSabaji Naik & Ors. vs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar & Ors.1areextracted below:

“13. This Court must view with disfavour any attempt by alitigant to abuse the process. The sanctity of the judicialprocess will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealtwith firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth orwith the procedures of the Court should be left in no doubtabout the consequences to follow. Others should not venturealong the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectationof judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and evennecessary, in order to ensure that in litigation, as in the lawwhich is practised in our country, there is no premium on thetruth.

D

E

14. Courts across the legal system-this Court not being anexception - are choked with litigation. Frivolous andFgroundless filings constitute a serious menace to theadministration of justice. They consume time and clog theinfrastructure. Productive resources which should bedeployed in the handling of genuine causes are dissipated inattending to cases filed only to benefit from delay, byprolonging dead issues and pursuing worthless causes. NoGlitigant can have a vested interest in delay. Unfortunately, asthe present case exemplifies, the process of dispensing justiceis misused by the unscrupulous to the detriment of thelegitimate. The present case is an illustration of how a simple

Issues

issue has occupied the time of the courts and of how successiveapplications have been filed to prolong the inevitable. Theperson in whose favour the balance of justice lies has in theprocess been left in the lurch by repeated attempts to revive astale issue. This tendency can be curbed only if courts acrossthe system adopt an institutional approach which penalizessuch behaviour. Liberal access to justice does not mean accessto chaos and Indiscipline. A strong message must be conveyedthat courts of justice will not be allowed to be disrupted bylitigative strategies designed to profit from the delays of thelaw. Unless remedial action is taken by all courts here andnow our society will breed a legal culture based on evasioninstead of abidance. It is the duty of every court to firmlydeal with such situations. The imposition of exemplary costsis a necessary instrument which has to be deployed to weedout, as well as to prevent the filing of frivolous cases. It isonly then that the courts can set apart time to resolve genuinecauses and answer the concerns of those who are in need ofjustice. Imposition of real time costs is also necessary to ensurethat access to courts is available to citizens with genuinegrievances. Otherwise, the doors would be shut to legitimatecauses simply by the weight of undeserving cases which floodthe system. Such a situation cannot be allowed to come topass. Hence it is not merely a matter of discretion but a dutyand obligation cast upon all courts to ensure that the legalsystem is not exploited by those who use the forms of the lawto defeat or delay justice. We commend all courts to deal withfrivolous filings in the same manner.”

(emphasis supplied)

15. The aforesaid judgment was cited with approval in a laterjudgment of this Court in ICOMM Tele Ltd. Vs. Punjab State WaterSupply and Sewerage Board and Ors.2

16. Now coming to the facts of the present case which clearlyestablish the case in hand to be a frivolous litigation, filed by the Appellants,where the officers shirk to take responsibility.

A

B

C

DEF

G

H

A

17. On merits also a similar issue came up for consideration beforethis Court in Sanjay Gera vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority& Anr.[3] In the aforesaid case, the plot was allotted in same Sector-14(Part), Hissar. Additional price was demanded for the same as is projectedin the case in hand.

B

18. Though the High Court had not granted relief to the allotee,therein however this Court accepted the plea and quashed the demandof additional price from the allottee, interpreting the same condition inthe letter of allotment as is in the case in hand. Paragraphs 2, 5 and 6thereof are reproduced hereunder:

C

“2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appealare that the plaintiff-appellant herein was allotted Plot No.940vide allotment letter bearing No.21548 dated August 20, 1986and he deposited an amount of Rs.18,600 in compliance ofthe conditions of the allotment and sent the requiredDdocuments. The defendant-respondents demanded the annualinstalment on account of the said plot and the plaintiff-appellant deposited the same vide receipt dated August 21,1987. After deposit of the total amount demanded by thedefendant-respondents by sending letter No.1300 datedJanuary 15, 1993 to the plaintiff-appellant demanding a sumEof Rs.38,400/- to be paid within a period of thirty days fromthe date of issue of the letter in respect of the above said plot.The plaintiff-appellant challenged this letter dated January15, 1993 as illegal, void and against the principles of naturaljustice and on various other counts. The grievance of theFplaintiff-appellant was that the demand raised by thedefendant-respondents is not valid as the said demand is noton account of any award given by the competent Authorityunder the Land Acquisition Act and the defendant-respondentscannot revoke the allotment made in his favour. The plaintiff-appellant made a request to the defendant-respondents toGrevoke the letter dated January 15, 1993 but the defendant-respondents refused to do so. Therefore, the plaintiff-appellantwas completed to file the present suit with prayer for adeclaration to the effect that the letter dated January 15, 1993

D

in respect of Plot No. 940, Sector 14, Part, Hisar issued bydefendant No.2 is illegal, void and liable to be set aside andhe also prayed for consequential relief for permanentinjunction restraining the defendants from revoking,reviewing or cancelling the allotment letter issued by thedefendants vide Memo No. 21548 dated August 20, 1986 andfrom taking any action on the basis of the aforesaid letter.The plaintiff-appellant also sought for temporary injunctiondirecting the defendant-respondents to deliver the possessionof the plot.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perusedthe records. There is no gainsaying that as per condition No.9of the allotment order the price in question was only tentative.But the condition is qualified that in case any award is givenby the Land Acquisition Officer the price can be enhanced.Condition No.9 reads as under:

“The above price is tentative to the extent that anyenhancement in the cost of land awarded by the competentauthority under the Land Acquisition Act shall be payableproportionately as determined by the authority. Theadditional price determined shall be paid within thirty daysof its demand.”

As per this condition enhancement could be made on the costof the land as per the award by the competent authority underthe Land Acquisition Act. But no such award was given bythe Land Acquisition authority. In a suit a duty is cast on thedefendants to lead evidence to show that increase on the costof the land is necessitated because of enhancement of payinghigher rate of compensation to the Animal HusbandryDepartment. But no such evidence was led in the suit. D.W.1nowhere stated that this enhancement was warranted becauseAnimal Husbandry Department had to be paid compensationat higher rate for acquisition of this land. It may be thatbecause of decision given by the Punjab and Haryana HighCourt, it enabled the defendants to claim higher price forallotted plot. In a civil suit all facts have to be pleaded andproved. But in the present case, there is no evidence tosubstantiate the allegation. It was incumbent on the part of AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe Haryana Urban Development Authority to substantiatethe same by leading proper evidence that the enhancementwas effected on account of increase in the price of acquisitionof land. But the statement of DW-1, the only evidence whichhas been led by the defendant/respondent is significantly silenton this issue. In civil matters, the rights of the parties cannotBbe determined just on the basis of any other judgment onquestions of fact. It is the duty of the defendants to specificallyplead and prove their case by leading proper evidence in thematter. As per the evidence led by the defendant/respondenti.e. the documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence,Cthe allegations made by the defendants are not substantiated.So far as condition no.9 of the allotment letter is concerned,there is no dispute that the defendants can demand additionalprice as the price at the time of allotment was tentative. But inorder to justify the enhancement of the price as per conditionNo. 9 of the allotment letter, the defendants had to lead properDevidence to substantiate the allegation. There is no suchevidence produced by the defendants. Therefore, the trialcourt has rightly approached in the matter and this is a caseof total misreading of the evidence by the learned Additional‘District Judge as well as by learned Single Judge of the HighECourt.

6. In the result of our above discussion, we are of the opinionthat the order passed by the trial court is justified and theview taken by the Additional District Judge as well as learnedSingle Judge of the High Court in the facts and circumstancesFof this case does not appear to be justified. Hence, we allowthis appeal and set aside the order passed by the learnedSingle Judge of the High Court as well as the order passedby the Additional District Judge, Hisar and confirm the orderdated March 27, 1996 passed by the trial court. No order asto costs.”

G

19. The issue sought to be raised before this Court was referringto the letter dated 01/12/1992 which according to the Appellants showsthe amount required to be paid by the Appellants to the Animal HusbandryDepartment for the land transferred to Sector-14, (Part), Hisar. Theidea to show the letter was that in fact the amount required to be paidH

for transfer of land was 3,00,000 instead of 1,21,000/- per acre. Thefact remains that the aforesaid document has been referred to andconsidered by this Court in Sanjay Gera’s case (supra) and no meritwas found in the arguments raised.

20. In the case in hand, the civil suit was filed on 1.10.2003 by theRespondent challenging the demand of additional price. Judgment ofthis Court in Sanjay Gera’s case was delivered on 22.02.2005. Despitethis fact being in knowledge of the Appellants, the suit was contestedand the same was decreed on 19.08.2008. The matter did not end here,appeal was preferred by the appellant before the First Appellate Courtand on failure even before the High Court and thereafter before thisCourt. For the aforesaid reasons and wasting the time of the Courts atdifferent levels, we deem it appropriate to burden the Appellants withcost of 1,00,000/- to be deposited with the Supreme Court MediationCentre.

21. In addition, the Respondent having been dragged in unnecessarylitigation upto this Court deserves to be awarded cost of 50,000/-.

22. The aforesaid amount shall be recovered by the Appellantsfrom the guilty officers/officials who opined the case to be fit for filingappeal at different levels despite being covered by judgment of thisCourt.

23. The additional amount sought to be recovered from theRespondent was 26,880/-to which there was no justification even atthe stage of issuance of notice. The suit was decreed on 19.08.2008.The amount spent on litigation would be much more. It is because ofimpersonal and irresponsible attitude of the officers, who want to puteverything to Court and shirk to take decisions. However, still theAppellants had not only filed appeals, resulting in addition to the pendencyof cases and also must have spent huge amount on litigation in the formof fee of the counsels and allied expenses. Besides that, number ofofficer(s)/official(s) must have visited the counsel engaged either atChandigarh, when the matter was taken up in the High Court andthereafter to this Court, when the order was challenged before this Court.Even that amount also needs to be calculated and recovered from theguilty officers who, despite there being judgment of this Court, dealingwith the same issue opined the case to be fit for filing appeals.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1166SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2023] 4 S.C.R.

A24. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed. The amountof cost be deposited in Supreme Court Mediation Centre and paid to therespondent within two months from today and regarding cost of litigation,needful shall be done within six months. Affidavit of compliance to befiled in this Court.

B

Nidhi Jain

Appeal dismissed.

(Assisted by : Mayank Batra, LCRA)

C

D

E

F

G

H