Anjana Saraiya vs The State of U.P. & Ors. Case

Anjana Saraiya vs The State of U.P. & Ors. Case


Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले


REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3784 of 2022 
Anjana Saraiya  ...Appellant 
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors.          ...Respondents
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 03.04.2019 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ ­ C
No.56136   of   2006   by   which   the   High   Court   has
dismissed   the   said   writ   petition   preferred   by   the
appellant   herein,   the   original   writ   petitioner   has
preferred the present appeal.
2. The appellant herein, a lady of about 55 years, was
allotted   a   residential   property   being   Plot   No.415
admeasuring   150   square   meters   in   Organized
1
Development Scheme, Phase­III, Pilkhuwa, District –
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh by the respondents under
the   category   of   Middle­Income   Group.     After   being
successful   in   the   draw   of   lots,   the   appellant   was
allotted the said plot at a price of Rs.2,70,000/­.  That
the   appellant   herein   made   an   upfront   payment   of
Rs.94,500/­ in the year 2003 itself and thereafter paid
the   first   three   instalments   regularly   and   in   time.
However, thereafter there was a default in making the
payment of installment nos. 4 to 7.  According to the
appellant   due   to   the   continuous   ill­health   of   her
husband she was in a financial crisis due to which
she was unable to deposit the remaining instalments.
That the petitioner was served with a notice dated
14.06.2006   from   the   Office   of   Municipal   Council
which, according to the appellant was served on her
on 19.06.2006 by which the appellant was informed
that   due   to   non­deposit   of   the   instalments   of   the
balance   amount   the   allotment   has   been   cancelled.
However, according to the appellant, even before the
said   notice   was   served   upon   her,   she   managed   to
2
secure the money from her relatives and deposited the
balance  amount with  interest  i.e. Rs.1,39,000/­ on
16.06.2006.     Out   of   payment   of   Rs.1,39,000/­   on
16.06.2006, an amount of Rs.1,04,128/­ (for last four
instalments)   was   towards   principal   amount   and
Rs.34,872/­ was towards interest amount.
Thus, as on 16.06.2006 the appellant deposited
the   entire   amount   and   cleared   all   the   instalments
along   with   the   interest.     Thereafter   the   appellant
herein, the allottee, filed the writ petition before the
High Court and prayed for the following reliefs:
“(i)   Issue a writ, order or direction in
the   nature   of   certiorari   to   quash   the
letter/notice/order   dated   14.06.2006
against   the   allotment   of   Plot   No.415,
issued   by   the   respondent   no.3
(Annexure No.1 to this writ petition).
(ii)   Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding
the   respondents   not   to   initiate   any
proceedings against the Plot No.415 of
the   petitioner   in   pursuance   of
letter/notice/order   dated   14.06.2006
issued by respondent no.3.
(iii)   Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents   to   complete   the
3
registration proceedings and also direct
the   respondents   not   to   allot   the
aforesaid   plot   No.415   to   any   other
person except to the petitioner.”
2.1 That pursuant to the interim order passed by the High
Court   the   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, against the
total value of the plot i.e. 2,70,000/­, the appellant
deposited   a   total   sum   of   Rs.3,84,546/­   (including
interest).  By the impugned judgment and order, the
High Court has dismissed the said writ petition solely
on the ground and by observing that the appellant did
not fulfil the terms and conditions as provided under
the   Scheme   and   did   not   deposit   the   instalments
regularly and as and when due and payable, therefore
the authorities 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 the allotment
the   respondents   refunded   the   entire   money   after
deducting 20% of the deposited amount which was
sent to the appellant through cheque which is not
4
encashed   by   the   appellant.     By   the   impugned
judgment and order the High Court has dismissed the
writ   petition   which   has   given   rise   to   the   present
appeal.
3. Shri Kavin Gulati, learned Senior Advocate appearing
on behalf of the appellant has submitted that as such
against the total sale consideration of Rs.2,70,000/­,
by now the appellant has deposited a total sum of
Rs.3,84,546/­ (including interest) which is lying with
the respondent.
3.1 It is submitted that as such there was no deliberate
and/or willful default on the part of the appellant in
not depositing the instalments regularly as and when
due and payable.  It is submitted that due to the illhealth   of   her   husband  and   she,  being   in   financial
difficulty, could not make the deposit of instalments in
time.  It is submitted that over and above the amount
of   Rs.50,000/­   which   has   been   deposited   by   the
appellant pursuant to the interim order passed by the
High Court, the appellant was ready and willing to pay
5
Rupees two lakhs for the compensation for the delayed
payment.  It is submitted that even as of now also the
appellant is ready and willing to deposit a further sum
of   Rs.2   lakhs   towards   the   compensation   for   the
delayed payment and/or to regularize the payment of
instalments.
4. Shri V.K. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate, appearing
on   behalf   of   the   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh   and   Shri
Dinesh   Kumar   Garg,   learned   Senior   Advocate,
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respondent   No.3   have
supported the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court.
4.1 It is submitted that under the Scheme and as per the
allotment letter the appellant was required to deposit
the amount of instalments regularly and as and when
due and payable.   It is submitted that after the first
three   instalments   were   paid,   the   appellant   did   not
make the payment of the next four instalments and
therefore the authority was  well within its right  to
cancel the allotment.   It is submitted that thereafter
6
having found that the appellant had not made the
payment of the instalments regularly 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 in the facts and circumstances of the case,
we are of the opinion that if on payment of a further
sum of Rs.2 lakhs towards the compensation for the
delayed payment of instalments, the account of the
appellant   be   regularized   and   the   allotment   made
under   the   Middle­Income   Scheme   in   favour   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
dispute that at the time of allotment, the appellant
made   the   upfront   payment   of   Rs.94,500/­   and
thereafter   made   payment   towards   the   first   three
instalments.   However, thereafter because of the illhealth of her husband she was in financial difficulty
and therefore she could not make the payment of the
7
remaining   four   instalments   which   she   made   on
16.06.2006   with   interest.     The   aforesaid   payments
show her bonafides and that there was no deliberate,
willful delay on the part of the appellant in not making
the payment of instalments in time.  Even thereafter
the   appellant   has   deposited   a   further   sum   of
Rs.50,000/­ pursuant to the interim order passed by
the High Court and therefore by now the appellant has
deposited   a   total   sum   of   Rs.3,84,546/­   (including
interest) against the total value/cost of Rs.2,70,000/­.
Therefore, now when the appellant is ready and willing
to pay a further sum of Rupees two lakhs towards
compensation for the delay in making the payment of
instalments, we are of the opinion that the offer made
by the appellant is a fair offer and by which, allotment
of plot in favour of a lady which is made under the
Middle­Income Group Scheme and the plot being still
vacant and not allotted to any other person, the order
of cancellation may be set aside.
8
6. In view of the above and for the reason stated above,
the present appeal is allowed. On payment of a further
sum   of   Rs.2,00,000/­   (Rupees   Two   Lakhs)   to   be
deposited in favour of the respondent within six weeks
from today, the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court is set aside.   Consequently, the
order dated 14.06.2006 cancelling the allotment of the
plot in question is hereby quashed and set aside.  On
payment of a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/­ (Rupees
Two Lakhs) within the time stipulated hereinabove,
the respondents are directed to hand over the vacant
possession of the plot in question to the appellant and
execute the necessary documents, if any, required to
be executed within a period of four weeks thereafter.
Present   appeal   is   allowed   to   the   aforesaid   extent.
There is no order as to costs.
…………………………………J.
             (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
                                                  (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi, 
May 12, 2022.
9

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर