Surjeet Singh Sahni vs State Of U.P. on 28 February, 2022


Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Supreme Court of India

Surjeet Singh Sahni vs State Of U.P. on 28 February, 2022

Author: M.R. Shah

Bench: M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna

                                                                            REPORTABLE


                                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                              EXTRA-ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                             SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 3008 OF 2022


         Surjeet Singh Sahni                                             …Petitioner(s)

                                                   Versus


         State of U.P. and Ors.                                         …Respondent(s)


                                                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 –
Signature Not Verified

NOIDA vide Sale Deed dated 19.09.2001 whereby the petitioner sold a
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2022.03.02
16:38:02 IST
Reason:

Plot No. 163 of Khata No. 254 to the NOIDA under the provisions of

1
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

2
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 it’s 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

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

allotment of 10% plot as per Clause 12 of the Sale Deed dated

19.09.2001 in the year 2010, i.e., after a period of 10 years from the date

of execution of the Sale Deed. Therefore, as such if the suit would have

been filed for specific performance, the same would have been barred

by limitation. Despite the above, the petitioner filed a writ petition before

the High Court and as observed hereinabove prayed for specific

performance of Clause 12 of the Sale Deed dated 19.09.2001 being Writ

Petition No.37443 of 2011, which was also filed after a period of 11

years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed. Therefore, as such

when the earlier writ petition was filed in the year 2011 which was also

barred by delay and latches, the High Court ought not to have

entertained the same. Instead, the High Court entertained the said writ

petition and directed the NOIDA to decide the representation of the

petitioner, which as such was made after a period of 10 years,

expeditiously and it gave the fresh blood to the litigation, which otherwise

was barred by delay and latches. The High Court by passing the order
4
dated 07.04.2017 as such did not realise and/or appreciated that the writ

petition itself was required to be dismissed on the ground of delay and

latches as the same was filed after a period of 11 years from the date of

execution of the Sale Deed under which the right was claimed. We have

come across number of such orders passed by the High Courts directing

the authorities to decide the representation though the representations

are made belatedly and thereafter when a decision is taken on such

representation, thereafter it can be said on behalf of the petitioner that

the fresh cause of action has arisen on rejection of the representation.

Therefore, when such orders are passed by the High Courts either

relegating the petitioner to make a representation and/or directing the

appropriate authority to decide the representation, the High Courts have

to consider whether the writ petition is filed belatedly and/or the same is

barred by latches and/or not, so that in future the person who has

approached belatedly may not contend that the fresh cause of action

has arisen on rejection of the representation. Even in a case where

earlier representation is rejected, the High Court shall decide the matter

on merits.

5. As observed by this Court in catena of decisions, mere

representation does not extend the period of limitation and the aggrieved

person has to approach the Court expeditiously and within reasonable

time. If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches,

the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to
5
dispose of the writ petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a

representation and/or directing the authority to decide the

representation, once it is found that the original writ petitioner is guilty of

delay and latches. Such order shall not give an opportunity to the

petitioner to thereafter contend that rejection of the representation

subsequently has given a fresh cause of action.

6. Even otherwise on merits also, we are in complete agreement with

the view taken by the High Court. The High Court has rightly refused to

grant any relief which as such was in the form of specific performance of

the contract. No writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall

be maintainable and/or entertainable for specific performance of the

contract and that too after a period of 10 years by which time even the

suit for specific performance would have been barred by limitation.

7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, there is no

substance in the present special leave petition and the same deserves

to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

………………………………….J.

                                                 [M.R. SHAH]



NEW DELHI;                                   ………………………………….J.
FEBRUARY 28, 2022.                             [B.V. NAGARATHNA]


                                        6



Source link