Supreme Court of India

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.versusCOL. KULDEEP SINGH

Citation: 2010 INSC 340
Decided: 3 June 2010
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: B S CHAUHAN

Holding

An allottee under the Punjab Urban Estate (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965 is liable to pay the additional price, and the demand notice is valid and enforceable.

Summary

Colonel Kuldeep Singh, an allottee under the Punjab Urban Estate (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965, received a demand notice requiring payment of an additional price for his allotted plot. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the demand notice, holding that the allottee was not liable to pay the extra amount. The appellant challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, contending that the demand notice was valid under the Rules. Relying on the earlier decision in Smt. Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors., the Court held that the allottee is indeed liable to pay the additional price as stipulated by the Rules. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment, upheld the demand notice, and allowed the appeal. The appellant was directed to recover the amount due in accordance with law.

Issues considered

Whether an allottee under the Punjab Urban Estate (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965 is liable to pay an additional price for the allotted plot.
Whether the demand notice issued to the allottee is valid and enforceable.

Legislation cited

Punjab Urban Estate (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965

Subjects

Allotment of plotAdditional priceDemand noticePunjab Urban Estate RulesLiability of allotteeSupreme Court appeal

Judgment

                         [2010] 7 S.C.R. 344


A                   STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
                                   v.
                       COL. KULDEEP SINGH
                   (Civil Appeal No. 3546 of 2007)
                            JUNE 3, 2010
B
     [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]

        Punjab Urban Estate (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965:

c         Allotment of plot - Liability of al/ottee to pay additional
    price - HELD: In view of the decision of the Court in Smt.
    Fuljit Kaur* the judgment of the High Court is set aside - The
    demand notice is upheld - The appellants are entitled to make
    recovery in accordance with law.
D        *Smt. Fuljit Kaur vs. state of Punjab & Ors. [201 O] 7 SCR
    317, relied on.

                          Case Law Reference:
         [2010] 7 SCR 317           relied on             para 2
E
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    3546 of 2007.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 6.12.2006 of the High
F   Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ
    Petition No. 18110 of 1991.

         Vijay Hansaria, (A.C.) and Ashok Mathur for the appearing
    parties.

G        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. We have heard Ms. Rachna
    Joshi lssar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. In spite
    of notice, respondent did not enter appearance. We requested
H                                  344
   STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. COL. KULDEEP                 345
         SINGH [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

Sh. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel for the respondent,   A
to assist the Court as Ami.cus Curiae.

     2. For the reasons recorded in Civil Appeal No. 5292 of
2004 (Smt. Fuljit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.) decided
on this date, the appeal stands allowed. Judgment and Order      8
of the High Court dated 06.12.2006 is set aside and the
Demand Notice is upheld. The appellant is entitled to make
recovery in accorda~ce with law.

R.P.                                         Appeal allowed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Allotment of plot"Sign in to search