Supreme Court of India
ANJANA SARAIYA versus THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS. on 12 May 2022
174
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 174
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
A
ANJANA SARAIYA
v.
THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3784 of 2022)
B
MAY 12, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Housing – Allotment of plot/property – Cancellation thereofC– Appellant, a lady of about 55 years, was allotted residentialproperty by the respondents – Appellant made upfront payment andpaid the first three installments regularly and in time – However,she defaulted in making payment of the remaining four installments– Due to non-deposit of installments of the balance amount, theallotment was cancelled – Appellant filed writ petition – High CourtDdismissed the petition on the ground that appellant did not fulfillthe terms and conditions as provided under the Scheme and did notdeposit the installments regularly and as and when due and payable,and therefore the authorities were within their rights to cancel theallotment – On appeal, held: Appellant could not make payment ofEthe remaining four installments as she was in financial difficultydue to ill-health of her husband, however, she did make the paymentssubsequently with interest – The said payments show the bonafidesof the appellant and that there was no deliberate, willful delay onher part in not making the payment of installments in time – Eventhereafter, the appellant deposited a further sum of Rs.50,000/-Fpursuant to interim order passed by the High Court and thereforethe appellant has already deposited a total sum of Rs.3,84,546/-(including interest) against the total value/cost of Rs.2,70,000/- –Even now appellant is ready and willing to pay a further sum ofRupees two lakhs towards compensation for the delay in makingGthe payment of installments – The offer made by the appellant is afair offer – Further, the allotment of plot was in favour of a ladywhich was made under the Middle-Income Group Scheme and theplot being still vacant and not allotted to any other person, theorder of cancellation may be set aside.
H
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. It is not in dispute that at the time of allotment,the appellant made the upfront payment of Rs.94,500/- andthereafter made payment towards the first three instalments.However, thereafter because of the ill-health of her husband shewas in financial difficulty and therefore she could not make thepayment of the remaining four instalments which she made on16.06.2006 with interest. The aforesaid payments show herbonafides and that there was no deliberate, willful delay on thepart of the appellant in not making the payment of instalments intime. Even thereafter the appellant has deposited a further sumof Rs.50,000/- pursuant to the interim order passed by the HighCourt and therefore by now the appellant has deposited a totalsum of Rs.3,84,546/- (including interest) against the total value/cost of Rs.2,70,000/-. Therefore, now when the appellant is readyand willing to pay a further sum of Rupees two lakhs towardscompensation for the delay in making the payment of instalments,this Court is of the opinion that the offer made by the appellant isa fair offer and by which, allotment of plot in favour of a lady whichis made under the Middle-Income Group Scheme and the plotbeing still vacant and not allotted to any other person, the orderof cancellation of the plot in question may be set aside. Onpayment of a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs)within the time stipulated, the respondents are directed to handover the vacant possession of the plot in question to the appellantand execute the necessary documents, if any. [Paras 5.1, 6][178-F-H; 179-A-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.3784of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.04.2019 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-C No.56136 of 2006.
Kavin Gulati, Sr. Adv., Avi Tandon, Ms. Meghna Tandon, Ms.Vanshika Gupta, Anish Agarwal, Advs. for the Appellant.
V. K. Shukla, Sr. Adv., Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan Mishra,Anurag Tiwari, Kamlendra Mishra, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Abhishek Garg,Dhananjay Garg, N. Suresha, Advs. for the Respondents.
ABC
DE
F
G
H
AThe Judgment of the court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 03.04.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature atAllahabad in Writ - C No.56136 of 2006 by which the High Court hasBdismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellant herein, theoriginal writ petitioner has preferred the present appeal.
2. The appellant herein, a lady of about 55 years, was allotted aresidential property being Plot No.415 admeasuring 150 square metersin Organized Development Scheme, Phase-III, Pilkhuwa, District –CGhaziabad, Uttar Pradesh by the respondents under the category ofMiddle-Income Group. After being successful in the draw of lots, theappellant was allotted the said plot at a price of Rs.2,70,000/-. That theappellant herein made an upfront payment of Rs.94,500/- in the year2003 itself and thereafter paid the first three instalments regularly and inDtime. However, thereafter there was a default in making the payment ofinstallment nos. 4 to 7. According to the appellant due to the continuousill-health of her husband she was in a financial crisis due to which shewas unable to deposit the remaining instalments. That the petitioner wasserved with a notice dated 14.06.2006 from the Office of MunicipalCouncil which, according to the appellant was served on her onE19.06.2006 by which the appellant was informed that due to non-depositof the instalments of the balance amount the allotment has been cancelled.However, according to the appellant, even before the said notice wasserved upon her, she managed to secure the money from her relativesand deposited the balance amount with interest i.e. Rs.1,39,000/- onF16.06.2006. Out of payment of Rs.1,39,000/- on 16.06.2006, an amountof Rs.1,04,128/- (for last four instalments) was towards principal amountand Rs.34,872/- was towards interest amount.
Thus, as on 16.06.2006 the appellant deposited the entire amountand cleared all the instalments along with the interest. Thereafter theGappellant herein, the allottee, filed the writ petition before the High Courtand prayed for the following reliefs:
“(i)Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari toquash the letter/notice/order dated 14.06.2006 against theallotment of Plot No.415, issued by the respondent no.3(Annexure No.1 to this writ petition).H
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamusAcommanding the respondents not to initiate any proceedingsagainst the Plot No.415 of the petitioner in pursuance ofletter/notice/order dated 14.06.2006 issued by respondentno.3.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamusdirecting the respondents to complete the registrationproceedings and also direct the respondents not to allot theaforesaid plot No.415 to any other person except to thepetitioner.”
B
2.1 That pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Courtthe appellant deposited a further sum of Rs.50,000/- on 21.11.2006.Therefore, by the time the petition was heard by the High Court, againstthe total value of the plot i.e. 2,70,000/-, the appellant deposited a totalsum of Rs.3,84,546/- (including interest). By the impugned judgmentand order, the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition solely onthe ground and by observing that the appellant did not fulfil the termsand conditions as provided under the Scheme and did not deposit theinstalments regularly and as and when due and payable, therefore theauthorities were within their rights to cancel the allotment. At this stage,it is required to be noted that in the meantime and on cancellation of theallotment the respondents refunded the entire money after deducting20% of the deposited amount which was sent to the appellant throughcheque which is not encashed by the appellant. By the impugned judgmentand order the High Court has dismissed the writ petition which has givenrise to the present appeal.
C
D
E
3. Shri Kavin Gulati, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalfof the appellant has submitted that as such against the total saleconsideration of Rs.2,70,000/-, by now the appellant has deposited atotal sum of Rs.3,84,546/- (including interest) which is lying with therespondent.
F
3.1 It is submitted that as such there was no deliberate and/orwillful default on the part of the appellant in not depositing the instalmentsregularly as and when due and payable. It is submitted that due to the ill-health of her husband and she, being in financial difficulty, could notmake the deposit of instalments in time. It is submitted that over andabove the amount of Rs.50,000/- which has been deposited by the G
H
Aappellant pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court, theappellant was ready and willing to pay Rupees two lakhs for thecompensation for the delayed payment. It is submitted that even as ofnow also the appellant is ready and willing to deposit a further sum ofRs.2 lakhs towards the compensation for the delayed payment and/or toregularize the payment of instalments.B
4. Shri V.K. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalfof the State of Uttar Pradesh and Shri Dinesh Kumar Garg, learnedSenior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 havesupported the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.
C4.1 It is submitted that under the Scheme and as per the allotmentletter the appellant was required to deposit the amount of instalmentsregularly and as and when due and payable. It is submitted that after thefirst three instalments were paid, the appellant did not make the paymentof the next four instalments and therefore the authority was well withinits right to cancel the allotment. It is submitted that thereafter havingDfound that the appellant had not made the payment of the instalmentsregularly and as and when due and payable the allotment was cancelled.It is submitted that the High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and inthe facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that if onEpayment of a further sum of Rs.2 lakhs towards the compensation forthe delayed payment of instalments, the account of the appellant beregularized and the allotment made under the Middle-Income Scheme infavour of the appellant who is a lady can be saved.
5.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted and it is not in disputeFthat at the time of allotment, the appellant made the upfront payment ofRs.94,500/- and thereafter made payment towards the first threeinstalments. However, thereafter because of the ill-health of her husbandshe was in financial difficulty and therefore she could not make thepayment of the remaining four instalments which she made on 16.06.2006Gwith interest. The aforesaid payments show her bonafides and that therewas no deliberate, willful delay on the part of the appellant in not makingthe payment of instalments in time. Even thereafter the appellant hasdeposited a further sum of Rs.50,000/- pursuant to the interim orderpassed by the High Court and therefore by now the appellant has depositeda total sum of Rs.3,84,546/- (including interest) against the total value/H
cost of Rs.2,70,000/-. Therefore, now when the appellant is ready andwilling to pay a further sum of Rupees two lakhs towards compensationfor the delay in making the payment of instalments, we are of the opinionthat the offer made by the appellant is a fair offer and by which, allotmentof plot in favour of a lady which is made under the Middle-Income GroupScheme and the plot being still vacant and not allotted to any other person,the order of cancellation may be set aside.
6. In view of the above and for the reason stated above, the presentappeal is allowed. On payment of a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (RupeesTwo Lakhs) to be deposited in favour of the respondent within six weeksfrom today, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Courtis set aside. Consequently, the order dated 14.06.2006 cancelling theallotment of the plot in question is hereby quashed and set aside. Onpayment of a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) withinthe time stipulated hereinabove, the respondents are directed to handover the vacant possession of the plot in question to the appellant andexecute the necessary documents, if any, required to be executed withina period of four weeks thereafter. Present appeal is allowed to theaforesaid extent. There is no order as to costs.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose
Appeal allowed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H