1. Sale of land under U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 — Claim for plot allotment under contract clause — Writ petition for specific performance. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 201
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad)
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Surjeet Singh Sahni – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3008 of 2022
Decided On : 28-02-2022
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Specific Performance of Contract - No writ under Article 226 of Constitution shall be maintainable for specific performance of contract.
(2) Limitation - Mere representation does not extend period of limitation and aggrieved person has to approach Court expeditiously and within reasonable time.
(1) Specific Performance of Contract - No writ under Article 226 of Constitution shall be maintainable for specific performance of contract.
(2) Limitation - Mere representation does not extend period of limitation and aggrieved person has to approach Court expeditiously and within reasonable time.
Subject
Writ Petition - Specific Performance
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 3 - Agreement to sell - Specific Performance of Contract - No writ under Article 226 of Constitution of India shall be maintainable for specific performance of contract - High Court has rightly refused to grant any relief which as such was in form of specific performance of contract - Mere representation does not extend period of limitation and aggrieved person has to approach Court expeditiously and within reasonable time - If it is found that writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches, High Court should dismiss it at threshold and ought not to dispose of writ petition by relegating writ petitioner to file a representation and/or directing authority to decide representation - Such order shall not give opportunity to petitioner to thereafter contend that rejection of representation subsequently has given a fresh cause of action - High Court has rightly refused to grant any relief which as such was in form of specific performance of contract, that too after a period of 10 years by which time even suit for specific performance would have been barred by limitation - SLP dismissed. (Paras 5, 6 and 7)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 09.09.2021 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ C No.40336 of 2017 by which High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the petitioner herein, original writ petitioner has preferred the present special leave petition.
Findings of Court:
There is no substance in the present special leave petition and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Result : Special Leave Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Maintainability of writ petition for specific performance of a contract — Impact of delay and laches on the claim for land allotment. (Para 2 )
3. High Courts must dismiss belated writ petitions at the threshold instead of directing representations, which improperly revive barred claims; specific performance requires a civil suit. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
4. Writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable for specific performance of a contract; mere representation does not extend the period of limitation. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Special leave petition dismissed. (Para 7 )
6. Does filing a representation extend the limitation period for a legal claim?
No, mere representation does not extend the period of limitation. An aggrieved person must approach the court expeditiously and within a reasonable time. (Para 5 )
7. Should High Courts direct authorities to decide representations in cases of significant delay and laches?
No. If a writ petition is found to be filed belatedly or is barred by laches, the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold rather than directing the authority to decide a representation, as the latter may improperly create a fresh cause of action. (Para 4 , 5 )
8. Is a writ petition under Article 226 maintainable for the specific performance of a contract?
No, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable or entertainable for the specific performance of a contract. (Para 6 )
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 09.09.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ (C) No. 40336 of 2017 by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the petitioner herein, the original writ petitioner has preferred the present special leave petition.
2. The facts leading to the present special leave petition in nutshell are as under:
2.1 That the petitioner entered into a Sale-Deed with the respondent-NOIDA vide Sale-Deed dated 19.09.2001 whereby the petitioner sold a Plot No. 163 of Khata No. 254 to the NOIDA under the provisions of Section 6 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 and in terms of the Resolution in 102nd meeting of NOIDA. According to the petitioner, Clause No. 12 of the Sale-Deed clearly provided that a plot of 10% area (to be calculated of the total land sold) shall be allotted to the petitioner on payment of 10% of the amount as being paid under the Sale-Deed. In addition, it clearly recorded that “Original Farmer” shall also be entitled to “Rehabilitation Bonus.”
2.2 That after a period of 10 years from the date of execution of the Sale-Deed, the petitioner made a representation to NOIDA vide representation dated 10.03.2010 requesting to allot a plot as agreed in terms of the Sale-Deed. That thereafter the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 5599 of 2011 before the High Court of Allahabad inter-alia praying that directions to the NOIDA to allot 10% of the land of the acquired area of the land of the petitioner for Abadi purposes in terms of Clause 12 of the Sale-Deed dated 19.09.2001 and as per Resolution in 102nd meeting of NOIDA Board held on 07.01.1998. Though the said writ petition was filed after a period of 11 years from the date of execution of the Sale-Deed and though the said writ petition was barred by delay and latches, the High Court entertained the said writ petition, however, disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 07.04.2017 directing the NOIDA to decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks.
2.3 That thereafter vide order dated 23.05.2017, the NOIDA rejected the said representation. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the NOIDA dated 23.05.2017 rejecting the representation, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 40336 of 2017 by which the petitioner again prayed to allot 10% plot to him as provided under Clause 12 of the Sale-Deed dated 19.09.2001 and as per the Resolution passed in 102nd meeting of NOIDA Board on 07.01.1998. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order has dismissed the said writ petition inter-alia holding firstly, that Writ Petition arising out of contract between parties is not maintainable and petitioner should have filed a Suit for specific performance; secondly, Writ Petition has been filed after a delay of 16 years and delay is fatal for challenge to acquisition or for any claim arising out of it; thirdly, Clause 12 of Sale-Deed provided for allotment of land to original Khatedar and as the petitioner has purchased land in 1970 therefore its clear that petitioner is not original agriculturist and the establishment of NOIDA in 1976 shall have no bearing on the matter.
2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition, the original writ petitioner has preferred the present special leave petition.
3. We have heard Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner at length. We have also gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.
4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as such the petitioner prayed for a specific performance of Clause 12 of the Sale-Deed dated 19.09.2001. For the first time, the petitioner made a representation for
