Back
2010 (6) Supreme 714
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Greater Mohali Area Development Authority & Anr. — Appellants
versus
Manju Jain & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6791 of 2010
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6427 of 2008)
Decided on : 19-8-2010
AIR 1918 PC 102; AIR 1981 SC 1191; (2007) 6 SCC 555; AIR 1989 SC 1433; (1996) 7 SCC 275; (2007) 13 SCC 154; (2007) 14 SCC 753; (2008) 5 SCC 438; (2008) 13 SCC 506; AIR 2009 SC 1233 – Relied upon
(b) Allotment of flats – Mere draw of lots/allocation letter does not clothe the person selected with a legal right to allotment. (Para 22)
AIR 1995 SC 1 – Relied upon
(c) Administrative Law – An order does not become effective unless it is published and communicated to the person concerned. (Para 23)
AIR 1963 SC 395; AIR 1966 SC 1313; AIR 1998 SC 2722; (2002) 8 SCC 443; (2003) 5 SCC 413 – Relied upon
(d) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Pure question of law can be raised at any time of the proceedings but a question of fact requiring investigation and enquiry for which no factual foundation has been laid by a party before the Court or Tribunal below, cannot be allowed to be agitated in the Writ Petition – If at all, a new factual plea cannot be entertained without giving due opportunity to the opposite party – It is not permissible for the High Court to consider a new case on facts or mixed question of fact and law which was not the case of the parties before the Court or Tribunal below. (Para 25)
AIR 1992 SC 932; (1999) 7 SCC 303; (2001) 8 SCC 133; (2006) 6 SC 666; (2009) 14 SCC 406; (2010) 2 SCC 733 – Relied upon
(e) Constitution of India – Article 226 – High Court, instead of examining the case in the correct perspective, proceeded in haste – Amounts to arbitrariness. (Para 25)
AIR 2010 SC 1237 – Relied upon
(f) Allotment of flats – Cancellation of an allotment should be a last resort, that too not unless the intention or motive on the part of the allottee in not making due payment is evident. (Para 26)
(2004) 2 SCC 130 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
1. Respondent No.1 applied for allotment of a flat under a hire purchase scheme along with application money of Rs.20,000/-.
2. The authority issued the letter of allotment dated 9th March, 1999 in her favour, which made it clear that the price of the house was Rs.5,55,200/- and that she had to send her acceptance of the allotment and deposit 25% of the amount within 60 days of the receipt of the allotment letter.
3. The respondent No.1 did not make any response to the said letter nor did she deposit any amount.
4. The appellant-authority on her query vide letter dated 28th August, 2003, informed the respondent No.1 that the allotment made in her favour stood cancelled, as she did not deposit any amount in pursuance of the allotment letter dated 9th March, 1999.
5. The appeal and revision filed by Respondent No. 1 were dismissed.
6. Her writ petition however has been allowed.
Finding of the Court:
Respondent no. 1 alone is to blame for her situation.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in Civil Writ Petition No. 16621 of 2007, by which the High Court has set aside the judgments and orders of the Revisional Authority dated 31st July, 2007 and the Appellate Authority dated 30th March, 2006 and the order of cancellation of the suit plot dated 20th August, 2003 by the statutory authority.
3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the respondent No.1 applied vide application No.026012, dated 27.1.1997, for allotment of a flat under a hire purchase scheme along with application money of Rs.20,000/-. After considering the application of the respondent No.1 along with other applicants, a draw of lots was held on 28.6.1997 and an M.I.G. flat was allocated to the respondent No.1 and she was informed vide letter dated 19.11.1997 about the said allocation. As per the said allocation letter, the allotment was for a tentative cost to the tune of Rs.4,79,200/-. Respondent No.1 would deposit a further 15% of the price of the flat within 30 days of the issuance of the allotment letter and the balance amount was to be deposited in equal monthly installments over a period of 13 years. It was also open for her to make payment of the balance amount in a lump sum within 60 days from the date of issue of the allotment letter. The authority issued the letter of allotment dated 9th March, 1999 in her favour, which made it clear that the price of the house was Rs.5,55,200/- and that she had to send her acceptance of the allotment and deposit 25% of the amount within 60 days of the receipt of the allotment letter. She had to deposit the balance amount in monthly installment over a period of 13 years. The respondent No.1 did not make any response to the said letter nor did she deposit any amount. The appellant- authority on her query vide letter dated 28th August, 2003, informed the respondent No.1 that the allotment made in her favour stood cancelled, as she did not deposit any amount in pursuance of the allotment letter dated 9th March, 1999.
4. Being aggrieved, respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Estate Officer of the appellants challenging the order of cancellation. The said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 30th March, 2006, against which the respondent No.1 preferred a revision which was also dismissed by the Revisional Authority vide order dated 31.7.2007.
5. Being aggrieved, respondent No. 1 preferred Writ Petition No.16621 of 2007 challenging the orders passed by the authorities of the appellants, as well as the State Government. The writ petition has been allowed quashing all the orders passed by the authorities of the appellants and of the State of Punjab. Hence, this appeal.
6. Mr. Satinder S. Gulati, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that the respondent No.1 was sent the letters of allocation as well as the allotment by Registered Post. She did not send her acceptance nor did she deposit any amount whatsoever and she filed an appeal wherein she did not take the ground that she had not received the letter of allotment. Respondent No. 1 had made very vague pleadings stating that she had not heard anything from the appellants after depositing the application fee. She failed to make any deposit at any stage and the High Court has wrongly proceeded as if she did not have any notice of the allocation or allotment. The High Court summoned the officer of the appellant-authority and quashed the order of cancellation and all other consequential orders only on the ground that the allotment letter had not been sent to the correct person at correct address, placing reliance upon the receipt and dispatch register of the authority alone. The appellant- authority was not given a proper opportunity to file a reply to the writ petition. Thus, the order impugned passed by the High Court is l
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
