Back
2011 Supreme(SC) 1535
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. SINGHVI, H.L. DATTU, JJ.
The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH) SATPAL -Petitioner
VERSUS
HARYANA URBAN DEV. AUTHORITY & ORS. – Respondent
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2011
Decided On : 12-08-2011
For the Petitioner: Mr. Keshav Kaushik, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand, Adv.
Default in payment of installments and violation of conditions of allotment justified the resumption of the booth site, and lack of evidence to refute these violations led to the dismissal of the special leave petition.
Headnote:
Delay Condoned - Resumption of Booth Site - The court dismissed the special leave petition against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which allowed the second appeal and restored the decree dismissing the suit for declaration and injunction. The petitioner failed to pay installments for the booth site, leading to its resumption by the competent authority. The lower appellate Court reversed the trial Court's decree, but the Single Judge allowed the second appeal, leading to the dismissal of the special leave petition and directing the respondents to take physical possession of the booth site.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner failed to pay installments for the booth site, leading to its resumption by the competent authority. The trial Court dismissed the suit for declaration and injunction, but the lower appellate Court reversed the decree. The Single Judge allowed the second appeal, resulting in the dismissal of the special leave petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had persistently failed to pay the installments for the booth site and had violated the conditions of allotment. The lower appellate Court's decree was set aside, and the special leave petition was dismissed, directing the respondents to take physical possession of the booth site.
Issues: Default in payment of installments, violation of conditions of allotment, reversal of trial Court's decree, allowance of second appeal, dismissal of special leave petition, direction to take physical possession of booth site.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's continuous default in making payment of the installments and violation of the conditions of allotment justified the resumption of the booth site. The lower appellate Court's decision was set aside due to the lack of evidence presented by the petitioner to show non-violation of conditions or non-default in payment.
Final Decision: The special leave petition was dismissed, and the respondents were directed to take physical possession of the booth site, if necessary by force, and auction it in accordance with relevant provisions.
ORDER :
1. The delay of 62 days in filing the special leave petition is condoned.
2. This petition is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the second appeal preferred by the respondents against the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court was allowed and the decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit for declaration and injunction filed by the petitioner was restored.
3. On the basis of highest bid given by him, the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula allotted built up booth No. 88, Sector 15, Panchkula to the petitioner subject to the terms and conditions enumerated in the allotment letter dated 12.1.1987. After about seven years, the competent authority resumed the booth together with the building constructed thereon because the petitioner persistently failed to pay the installments of price in accordance with the schedule specified in the allotment letter.
4. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula.
5. The petitioner challenged the resumption of booth in Civil Suit No. 233 of 2007. After considering the rival pleadings and evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the petitioner had not only defaulted in paying the installments, but also violated other conditions of allotment.
6. The lower appellate Court reversed the decree passed by the trial Court and directed restoration of booth site in favour of the appellant.
7. The second appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed by the learned Single Judge, who held that the finding recorded by the lower appellate Court on the issue of violation of the conditions of allotment was ex facie erroneous and untenable.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner for some time and perused the record. In our view, the lower appellate Court had gravely erred in allowing the appeal preferred by the petitioner and directing restoration of the booth site which had been resumed on account of continuous default by the petitioner in making payment of the installments and
the learned Single Judge rightly set aside the appellate decree because the petitioner had not adduced any evidence to show that he had not violated the conditions of allotment or that he had not defaulted in payment of the installments of price.
9. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
10. The respondents are directed to take physical possession of the booth site, if necessary by use of force and auction the same in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 and the rules and regulations framed therein.
11. The Registry is directed to send copies of this order to the Chairman and the Managing Director, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula by fax.
