Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the allotment of Site No.SCF 83 in Mohali by the Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (PUPDA) to the respondents, who won the auction with a bid of Rs.15,10,000/- on 10th August 1994. The letter of allotment, dated 29.5.1995, required the respondents to pay the balance amount in four instalments and stipulated that possession would be delivered within three months. However, PUPDA resumed the site on 21.7.1997, citing non-payment of instalments. The respondents contested this, arguing that they could not pay because possession had not been delivered. They were allowed to deposit the outstanding amount, which they did on 16.8.2001. The Appellate Authority set aside the resumption order on 13.12.2001, restoring the allotment and directing PUPDA to inform the respondents of any interest or penalty due. The Revisional Authority later ruled that the respondents were not liable for interest during the period of non-delivery of possession, which was delivered on 6.1.2004. PUPDA's challenge to this order was rejected by the High Court. The petitioner argued that the resumption was justified due to the respondents' failure to take possession and that they were liable for interest from 11.8.1998. The respondents contended they had paid the full price and interest by 16.8.2001 and were not seeking any refund. The court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and noted that the appellate authority's decision was final. The petition was disposed of without examining the interest claim, as the respondents did not seek a refund. PUPDA was directed to convey the site to the respondents upon fulfilling necessary formalities.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Site Allotment - Resumption Order Validity - Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2426 of 2007 - The court upheld the decision of the appellate authority restoring the site to the respondents, finding no merit in the petitioner's claim regarding the resumption order. The court noted that the resumption was based on the respondents' failure to take possession, which was not justified as possession was not delivered. Held that the appellate authority's decision was final and binding (Paras 5-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the resumption order was justified and if the respondents were liable for interest and penalty.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments regarding the resumption order and confirming the appellate authority's decision to restore the site to the respondents. The court noted that the respondents were not liable for interest during the period of non-delivery of possession and that PUPDA was required to convey the site upon fulfilling necessary formalities.
Law Points
- Site allotment
- resumption order
- interest payment
- possession delivery
- appellate authority decision
