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