SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 621

Supreme Court of India
G.S. SINGHVI & SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.
Smt. Khela Banerjee & Another
Versus
City Montessori School & Others
Review Petition (Civil) Nos. 2381-2382 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos.10180-10181 of 2011
Decided On : 10-07-2013

Advocate Appeared:
Irshad Ahmad, Additional Advocate General, Shanti Bhushan, Senior Advocate, (Sushendra K. Chauhan R.P. Gupta, Manish Sharma, Abhisth Kumar, Raman Yadav, Shakil Ahmad Syed, Syed Ahmad Saud, Mohd. Parvez Dabas), Advocates.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Amount in installments - Prevailing Greater Scheme - Review petitioner deposited bid money but did not pay balance price in terms of stipulations contained in tender notice - Instead Manager of review petitioner represented for permission to pay balance amount in six monthly installments - Accept his request by observing that such facility is not available in respect of open nasal land and garden leases - Thereupon Manager of review petitioner approached Principal Secretary to Governor and succeeded in persuading him to send State Government to instruct to hand over possession of plots and accept balance amount in easy installments - Accede to request made on behalf of review petitioner and cancelled bids given by it – Held, While approving view taken by High Court that mandamus cannot be issued for enforcing agreement this Court did observe that review petitioner had not challenged cancellation of bids by filing appropriate legal remedy and its Manager succeeded in persuading Governor of State to pass an unusual order handing over possession of plots and acceptance balance amount in six monthly installments - First portion of this observation cannot be considered as erroneous simply because Manager of review petitioner had made representation to Divisional Commissioner and obtained stay order - Pleadings of civil appeals review petitions and documents filed by parties do not show that review petitioner had challenged decision contained in letter by filing a suit or writ petition - Court rightly observed that petitioner did not challenge cancellation of bids by availing appropriate legal remedy and mere fact that some representation was made to Divisional Commissioner is not sufficient for accepting review petitioners assertion that this Court committed an error by making said observation - However second observation about competence of Governor to pass order has to be treated as incorrect because with imposition of Presidents Rule Governor became entitled to exercise all powers of State Government Rules of Business – Petition dismissed

Judgment :

1. These petitions have been filed for review of judgment dated 2.7.2012 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 10181 and 10180 of 2011 arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 13585 and 22369 of 2011.

2. For deciding the review petitions we may briefly notice the relevant facts.

2.1 Plot No. 92A Mahanagar, Faizabad Road, Lucknow was leased out by the Nazul Officer to Shri Moni Mohan Banerjee in 1958 for a period of 30 years. After about 3 years, the Nazul Officer granted lease of the adjoining plot bearing No.92A/C to Shri Banerjee for a period of 7 years for garden purposes.

2.2 In 1992, the State Government decided to convert leasehold nazul lands into freehold and directed that the same be disposed of by auction or by inviting tenders.

2.3 On 24.11.1994, Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) invited bids for disposal of plots including plot No.92A/C. The review petitioner gave bid for 4 plots including plot No.92A/C, which were accepted by the competent authority. The review petitioner deposited 25% of the bid money, but did not pay the balance price in terms of stipulations contained in the tender notice. Instead, the Manager of the review petitioner represented for permission to pay the balance amount in six-monthly installments. LDA did not accept his request by observing that such facility is not available in respect of open nazul land and garden leases. Thereupon, the Manager of the review petitioner approached the Principal Secretary to the Governor and succeeded in persuading him to send letter dated 3.4.1995 to the State Government to instruct LDA to hand over possession of plots and accept the balance amount in easy installments. LDA did not accede to the request made on behalf of the review petitioner and cancelled the bids given by it.

2.4 The Manager of the review petitioner then approached the Governor, who passed order dated 17.12.1995 and directed that possession of the plots be handed over to the management and the balance amount be accepted in ten six-monthly installments.

2.5 In compliance of the order passed by the Governor, the Vice-Chairman of LDA and the Manager of the review petitioner executed agreement dated 12.1.1996, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of which read as under:

"2. Whereas the payment of the installments as indicated above will be paid by the Second Party compulsorily by the prescribed time limit, failing which or in case of failure to deposit two consecutive installments, this Deed of Agreement will become void and the First Party shall be free to exercise its discretionary power to forfeit 1/4th of the total deposit and refund the remaining amount and the First Party, if desired so, shall be free to enter the land in question and shall have right to sell it in favour of any third party;

3. Whereas 25% of the total tender amount has been paid by the Second Party and for rest of the 75% amount an agreement has been reached at between the parties. Possession of the land in question is being delivered by way of the instant Agreement. Therefore, according to the prevailing Greater Scheme (Mahayojana) of 2001, if the Second Party produces building map, it will be considered for approval, holding thereby that the possession of the land is with the Second Party, that the Nazul Land in question or building constructed on it can be transferred only when the entire tender/auction amount and the total expenditure payable by that time are cleared to the First Party. Sale Deed in respect of the Nazul Land will be executed on the stamp paper by paying required stamp fees. Stamp fee and other expenses will be borne by the Second Party;

4. Whereas the Second Party shall deposit the remaining aforementioned tender amount in 10 half yearly installments under relevant accounts titled "0075 legal general services-105 Sale of Land & Property-03 lump-sum amount on converting Nazul land into freehold property" by the prescribed date by treasury challan/ bank draft in main branch of the State Bank at Lucknow."

2.6 Although the Man




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top