Case Note & Summary
The case involved a dispute between the State of Punjab and Dhanjit Singh Sandhu regarding the refund of an excess extension fee charged for a plot of land. The respondent was allotted a plot measuring 400 square yards in Ludhiana in 1986, with a condition to complete construction within three years. The Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, introduced rules regarding extension fees, which the respondent was charged under. The respondent claimed that he was overcharged and sought a refund, which was initially denied by the appellant. The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, citing a previous case (Tehal Singh's case) that invalidated the excessive fee. The Supreme Court, however, found that the respondent had accepted the terms of the allotment and paid the fee to avoid resumption of the plot, thus applying the doctrine of approbate and reprobate to deny the refund. The court emphasized that the respondent could not challenge the validity of the fee after benefiting from it. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and allowed the appeal, stating that the respondent was not entitled to a refund. No costs were awarded. The judgment was delivered on March 14, 2014.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Refund of Extension Fee - Entitlement to Refund - Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 - The court held that the respondent's acceptance of the terms of the allotment letter precluded him from claiming a refund of the extension fee, as he had previously agreed to the conditions and paid the fee to avoid resumption of the plot. The doctrine of approbate and reprobate was applied to deny the refund claim. (Paras 21-26).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent was entitled to a refund of the excess extension fee charged under the provisions of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and allowed the appeal, ruling that the respondent was not entitled to a refund of the extension fee as he had accepted the terms of the allotment and paid the fee to avoid resumption of the plot.
Law Points
- Doctrine of approbate and reprobate
- Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act
- 1995
- Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulation) Act
- 1964
- estoppel by election
- Rule 13 of 1995 Rules
