Supreme Court of India
SURJEET SINGH SAHNI versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. on 28 February 2022
728
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
A
SURJEET SINGH SAHNI
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3008 of 2022)
BFEBRUARY 28, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Delay / Laches – Belated representation before appropriateauthority – Delayed writ petition – Effect of – Held: Mererepresentation before the authority does not extend the period ofClimitation and the aggrieved person has to approach the Courtexpeditiously and within reasonable time – If it is found that a writpetitioner is guilty of delay and laches, the High Court should dismissit at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ petition byrelegating the writ petitioner to file a representation before theDauthority and / or directing the authority to decide the representation– Such order should not give an opportunity to the petitioner tothereafter contend that rejection of the representation subsequently(by the authority) has given a fresh cause of action – Constitutionof India, 1950 – Art.226.
EConstitution of India, 1950 – Art.226 – Belated writ petitionu/Art. 226, arising out of contract between the parties – Relief soughtin the form of specific performance of the contract – Maintainabilityof the writ petition – Held: On facts, no writ u/Art.226 shall bemaintainable and/or entertainable for specific performance of thecontract and that too after a period of 10 years by which time evenFthe suit for specific performance would have been barred bylimitation – Limitation.
E
Dismissing the SLP, the Court
HELD:1.1. In the instant case, by way of writ petition underGArticle 226 of the Constitution as such the petitioner prayed fora specific performance of Clause 12 of the Sale Deed dated19.09.2001. For the first time, the petitioner made arepresentation for allotment of 10% plot as per Clause 12 of theSale Deed dated 19.09.2001 in the year 2010, i.e., after a period H
of 10 years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed. Therefore,as such if the suit would have been filed for specific performance,the same would have been barred by limitation. Despite the above,the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court andprayed for specific performance of Clause 12 of the Sale Deeddated 19.09.2001, which was also filed after a period of 11 yearsfrom the date of execution of the Sale Deed. Therefore, as suchwhen the earlier writ petition was filed in the year 2011 whichwas also barred by delay and laches, the High Court ought not tohave entertained the same. Instead, the High Court entertainedthe said writ petition and directed the NOIDA to decide therepresentation of the petitioner expeditiously and it gave the freshblood to the litigation, which otherwise was barred by delay andlaches. NOIDA however rejected the said representation.Thereafter, the petitioner filed another Writ Petition which wasrightly dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment.[Paras 4, 7][732-B-E; 733-D]
1.2. There are number of orders passed by the High Courtsdirecting the authorities to decide the representation though therepresentations are made belatedly and thereafter when a decisionis taken on such representation, thereafter it can be said on behalfof the petitioner that the fresh cause of action has arisen onrejection of the representation. Therefore, when such orders arepassed by the High Courts either relegating the petitioner tomake a representation and/or directing the appropriate authorityto decide the representation, the High Courts have to considerwhether the writ petition is filed belatedly and/or the same isbarred by laches and/or not, so that in future the person who hasapproached belatedly may not contend that the fresh cause ofaction has arisen on rejection of the representation. Even in acase where earlier representation is rejected, the High Courtshall decide the matter on merits. [Para 4][732-F-H; 733-A]
2. Mere representation does not extend the period oflimitation and the aggrieved person has to approach the Courtexpeditiously and within reasonable time. If it is found that thewrit petitioner is guilty of delay and laches, the High Court shoulddismiss it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ AB
C
D
E
F
G
H
Apetition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a representationand/or directing the authority to decide the representation, onceit is found that the original writ petitioner is guilty of delay andlaches. Such order shall not give an opportunity to the petitionerto thereafter contend that rejection of the representationsubsequently has given a fresh cause of action. [Para 5]B[733-A-C]
3. Even otherwise on merits also, the High Court by theimpugned judgment has rightly refused to grant any relief whichas such was in the form of specific performance of the contract.No writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall beCmaintainable and/or entertainable for specific performance of thecontract and that too after a period of 10 years by which timeeven the suit for specific performance would have been barredby limitation. [Para 6][733-D-E]
EXTRA-ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SpecialDLeave Petition (C) No. 3008 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.09.2021 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in WRIT-C No.40336 of 2017.
Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv., Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Anant Gautam,ENipun Sharma, Ravi Solanki, Shanshank Shekar, Advs. for the Petitioner.
The 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 09.09.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature atFAllahabad in Writ C No.40336 of 2017 by which the High Court hasdismissed the said writ petition preferred by the petitioner herein, theoriginal writ petitioner has preferred the present special leave petition.
2. The facts leading to the present special leave petition in nutshellare as under:-G
2.1 That the petitioner entered into a Sale Deed with the respondent– NOIDA vide Sale Deed dated 19.09.2001 whereby the petitioner solda Plot No. 163 of Khata No. 254 to the NOIDA under the provisions ofSection 6 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 and interms of the Resolution in 102[nd] meeting of NOIDA. According to theH
petitioner, Clause No. 12 of the Sale Deed clearly provided that a plot of10% area (to be calculated of the total land sold) shall be allotted to thepetitioner on payment of 10% of the amount as being paid under theSale Deed. In addition, it clearly recorded that “Original Farmer” shallalso be entitled to “Rehabilitation Bonus”.
2.2 That after a period of 10 years from the date of execution ofthe Sale Deed, the petitioner made a representation to NOIDA viderepresentation dated 10.03.2010 requesting to allot a plot as agreed interms of the Sale Deed. That thereafter the petitioner preferred WritPetition No.5599 of 2011 before the High Court of Allahabad inter aliapraying that directions to the NOIDA to allot 10% of the land of theacquired area of the land of the petitioner for Abadi purposes in terms ofClause 12 of the Sale Deed dated 19.09.2001 and as per Resolution in102[nd] meeting of NOIDA Board held on 07.01.1998. Though the saidwrit petition was filed after a period of 11 years from the date of executionof the Sale Deed and though the said writ petition was barred by delayand laches, the High Court entertained the said writ petition, however,disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 07.04.2017 directingthe NOIDA to decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiouslyand preferably within a period of six weeks.
2.3 That thereafter vide order dated 23.05.2017, the NOIDArejected the said representation. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied withthe order passed by the NOIDA dated 23.05.2017 rejecting therepresentation, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.40336 of 2017 bywhich the petitioner again prayed to allot 10% plot to him as providedunder Clause 12 of the Sale Deed dated 19.09.2001 and as per theResolution passed in 102[nd] meeting of NOIDA Board on 07.01.1998.The High Court by the impugned judgment and order has dismissed thesaid writ petition inter alia holding firstly, that Writ Petition arising out ofcontract between parties is not maintainable and petitioner should havefiled a Suit for specific performance; secondly, Writ Petition has beenfiled after a delay of 16 years and delay is fatal for challenge to acquisitionor for any claim arising out of it; thirdly, Clause 12 of Sale Deed providedfor allotment of land to original Khatedar and as the petitioner haspurchased land in 1970 therefore it’s clear that petitioner is not originalagriculturist; and the establishment of NOIDA in 1976 shall have nobearing on the matter.
2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition, theoriginal writ petitioner has preferred the present special leave petition.
A
BC
D
E
F
G
H
A3. We have heard Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned Senior Advocateappearing on behalf of the petitioner at length. We have also gone throughthe impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.
4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by way of writpetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as such the petitionerBprayed for a specific performance of Clause 12 of the Sale Deed dated19.09.2001. For the first time, the petitioner made a representation forallotment of 10% plot as per Clause 12 of the Sale Deed dated 19.09.2001in the year 2010, i.e., after a period of 10 years from the date of executionof the Sale Deed. Therefore, as such if the suit would have been filedCfor specific performance, the same would have been barred by limitation.Despite the above, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the HighCourt and as observed hereinabove prayed for specific performance ofClause 12 of the Sale Deed dated 19.09.2001 being Writ PetitionNo.37443 of 2011, which was also filed after a period of 11 years fromthe date of execution of the Sale Deed. Therefore, as such when theDearlier writ petition was filed in the year 2011 which was also barred bydelay and laches, the High Court ought not to have entertained the same.Instead, the High Court entertained the said writ petition and directedthe NOIDA to decide the representation of the petitioner, which as suchwas made after a period of 10 years, expeditiously and it gave the freshEblood to the litigation, which otherwise was barred by delay and laches.The High Court by passing the order dated 07.04.2017 as such did notrealise and/or appreciated that the writ petition itself was required to bedismissed on the ground of delay and laches as the same was filed aftera period of 11 years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed underwhich the right was claimed. We have come across number of suchForders passed by the High Courts directing the authorities to decide therepresentation though the representations are made belatedly andthereafter when a decision is taken on such representation, thereafter itcan be said on behalf of the petitioner that the fresh cause of action hasarisen on rejection of the representation. Therefore, when such ordersGare passed by the High Courts either relegating the petitioner to make arepresentation and/or directing the appropriate authority to decide therepresentation, the High Courts have to consider whether the writ petitionis filed belatedly and/or the same is barred by laches and/or not, so thatin future the person who has approached belatedly may not contend thatthe fresh cause of action has arisen on rejection of the representation.H
Even in a case where earlier representation is rejected, the High Courtshall decide the matter on merits.
5. As observed by this Court in catena of decisions, mererepresentation does not extend the period of limitation and the aggrievedperson has to approach the Court expeditiously and within reasonabletime. If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches,the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to disposeof the writ petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a representationand/or directing the authority to decide the representation, once it isfound that the original writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. Suchorder shall not give an opportunity to the petitioner to thereafter contendthat rejection of the representation subsequently has given a fresh causeof action.
6. Even otherwise on merits also, we are in complete agreementwith the view taken by the High Court. The High Court has rightly refusedto grant any relief which as such was in the form of specific performanceof the contract. No writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiashall be maintainable and/or entertainable for specific performance ofthe contract and that too after a period of 10 years by which time eventhe suit for specific performance would have been barred by limitation.
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, there isno substance in the present special leave petition and the same deservesto be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose
SLP dismissed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H