Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: Justice B.S. Chauhan, Justice Swatanter Kumar
Date of Judgement: 3 June 2010
Facts of the Case: This was a unique case which revealed that an influential person can have allotment of a residential plot in discretionary quota within 48 hours of submission of application who then asserted in Court that she had a right to have a land on a throwaway price and not to deposit the sale price for quarter of a century. the appellant made an application on 23.02.1987 for allotment of a residential plot in Urban Estates, SAS Nagar, Punjab. The Administration, vide letter dated 25.02.1987, issued the allotment letter in favour of the appellant in respect of plot No. 702. and made it clear that as the proper calculation could not be made and tentative price had not been determined, the allottee had to deposit provisional price of Rs. 93000/- in four installments upto 15.10.1989. Subsequently, vide letter dated 25.03.1992, additional demand of Rs. 2,19,000/- was made, however, instead of depositing the said amount, appellant challenged the said Demand Notice by filing Writ Petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana contending that the additional demand was arbitrary and unreasonable. A large number of similar cases were also pending before the High Court and some had earlier been disposed of. However, the Writ Petition filed by the appellant had been dismissed by the High Court vide impugned Judgment and Order dated 21.12.1999 upholding the demand dated 25.03.1992. Hence, this appeal came before the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether such an order of withdrawal passed by this Court amounts to confirmation/approval of the judgment and order of the High Court and as to whether appellant could be treated differently.
Judgment: With reference to The Workmen of Cochin Port Trust v. The Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port Trust & Anr. AIR 1978 SC 1283 and Ahmedabad Manufacturing & Calico Printing Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen & Anr. AIR 1981 SC 960, there was no dispute to the settled proposition of law that dismissal of the Special Leave Petition in limine by this Court did not mean that the reasoning of the judgment of the High Court against which the Special Leave Petition had been filed before the Court stood affirmed or the judgment and order impugned merged with such order of this Court on dismissal of the petition. It simply meant that this Court did not consider the case worth examining for the reason, which may be other than merit of the case. Nor such an order of this Court operated as res judicata. An order rejecting the Special Leave Petition at the threshold without detailed reasons therefore did not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent.
In State of Maharashtra Vs. Digambar AIR 1995 SC 1991, the Court considered a case wherein against the judgment and order of the High Court, special leave petition was not filed but when other matters were disposed of by the High Court in terms of its earlier judgment, the Authorities approached this Court challenging the correctness of the same. This Court observed that the circumstances for non-filing the appeals in some other or similar matters or rejection of the SLP against such Judgment in limine by this Court, in some other similar matters by itself, would not preclude the State Authorities to challenge the other orders for the reason that non-filing of such SLP and pursuing them may seriously jeopardize the interest of the State or public interest.
In Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. AIR 2000 SC 2587 the Court came to the conclusion that where the matter has been decided by a non-speaking order in limine the party may approach the Court for reconsideration of the case in exceptional circumstances.
In Chandigarh Administration & Anr Vs. Jagjit Singh & Anr., AIR 1995 SC 705 the Court observed that even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the same relief.
In the instant case, the plots measuring 100 sq.yds. were to be allotted at tentative price calculated at subsidized rate of 10% less than the reserve price while plots measuring 150, 200 and 250 sq.yds. were to be allotted at tentative price equal to the reserve price. The plots measuring 300 and 400 sq.yds. area are to be allotted at tentative price equal to 1-1/2 times of the reserve price and plots measuring 500 sq.yds. were to be allotted at tentative price equal to double the reserve price. The Government fixed the reserve price at Rs.520/- per sq.yd. for calculating the tentative prices, in the above manner, for plots of various sizes. There was nothing on record to show that the tentative price determined by the State could be unreasonable or arbitrary and it is not the case of the allottee that the market value of the land has not been enhanced.
Ratio: The allotment had been made to the appellant within 48 hours of submission of her application though in ordinary cases, it takes about a year. Appellant had further been favoured to pay the aforesaid provisional price of Rs. 93,000/- in four installments in two years, as is evident from the letter dated 8.4.1987. Making the allotment in such a hasty manner itself is arbitrary and unreasonable and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution.
Decision: The Court held that such an allotment in favour of the appellant was liable to be declared to have been made in arbitrary and unreasonable manner. However, the Court was not inclined to take such drastic steps as the appellant has developed the land subsequent to allotment. The Court found no force in the appeal, it lacked merit and was, accordingly, dismissed.
By: Roopali Mohan, 2nd Year, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, New Delhi