Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal against the Delhi High Court's order dismissing the appellant's application for summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC. The appellant, Reliance Eminent Trading and Commercial Private Limited, had participated in a public auction conducted by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in 2007 for a commercial plot in Jasola, New Delhi. The appellant was the highest bidder and paid the entire sale consideration of Rs. 164.91 crore, along with stamp duty and property tax. DDA executed a conveyance deed in 2008. However, in 2015, the original landowner, Simla Devi, filed a writ petition claiming that the land acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The High Court declared the acquisition lapsed in 2016, and the Supreme Court dismissed DDA's appeal in 2017, granting six months to initiate fresh acquisition, which DDA failed to do. The appellant, unaware of these proceedings until December 2017, sought refund of all amounts paid. DDA refused, leading to a recovery suit. The appellant filed for summary judgment, which was dismissed by the Single Judge. The Supreme Court held that the appellant had a clear and undisputed right to refund as DDA failed to initiate fresh acquisition within the stipulated time, and the suit was within limitation. The Court set aside the High Court's order and directed summary judgment in favor of the appellant, ordering DDA to refund the sale consideration, stamp duty, and property tax with interest at 12% per annum from the date of payment until realization.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Summary Judgment - Order XIII-A Rule 4 CPC - Entitlement to Summary Judgment - The appellant sought summary judgment for recovery of sale consideration, stamp duty, and property tax paid to DDA after the land acquisition lapsed. The Court held that the appellant had a clear and undisputed right to refund as DDA failed to initiate fresh acquisition within six months as directed by the Supreme Court, and the suit was not barred by limitation. (Paras 2-3, 27-30) B) Limitation - Recovery of Money - Article 113 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Limitation for Refund - The Court held that the suit for refund was within limitation as the cause of action arose on 05.12.2017 when the appellant first learned of the lapsing of acquisition, and the suit was filed on 02.11.2020, within three years. (Paras 24, 30) C) Unjust Enrichment - Refund of Consideration - Failure of Consideration - The Court held that DDA cannot retain the sale consideration after the land acquisition lapsed and no title could be conveyed, as it would amount to unjust enrichment. The appellant paid the full consideration but received no benefit. (Paras 8, 24, 30) D) Non-Joinder of Parties - Summary Judgment - Order I Rule 9 CPC - The Court held that non-joinder of the original landowner (Simla Devi) was not fatal to the summary judgment application as the appellant's claim was solely against DDA for refund of amounts paid, and Simla Devi was not a necessary party. (Para 26, 30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC for recovery of the sale consideration and other amounts paid to DDA, given that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed and DDA failed to initiate fresh acquisition within the stipulated time.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed summary judgment in favor of the appellant. DDA was ordered to refund the sale consideration of Rs. 164,91,00,000/-, stamp duty of Rs. 9,89,46,025/-, and property tax of Rs. 24,00,036/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of payment until realization.
Law Points
- Summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC
- Doctrine of unjust enrichment
- Right to refund upon failure of consideration
- Limitation for recovery of money paid under void contract
- Non-joinder of parties in summary proceedings
