Supreme Court of India

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.versusG.S. RANDHAWA

Citation: 2010 INSC 339
Decided: 3 June 2010
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: B S CHAUHAN

Holding

The allottee is liable to pay the additional price and the demand notice is upheld, setting aside the High Court's order.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the liability of an allottee under the Punjab Urban Estate (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965 to pay an additional price for a plot. The High Court had dismissed the demand notice issued to the allottee, but the Supreme Court set aside that judgment, upheld the demand notice, and affirmed the State's right to recover the additional amount. The Court relied on its earlier decision in Smt. Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2010) 7 SCR 317. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the State was entitled to make recovery in accordance with law.

Issues considered

What is the liability of an allottee to pay additional price under the Punjab Urban Estate (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965?
Whether the demand notice issued to the allottee is legally valid and enforceable?

Legislation cited

Punjab Urban Estate (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965

Subjects

Allotment of plotAdditional priceDemand noticePunjab Urban Estate RulesRecoverySupreme CourtAppeal

Judgment

                           [2010] 7 S.C.R. 342


A                     STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
                                     v.
                            G.S. RANDHAWA
                    (Civil Appeal No. 3392 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 allottee 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.
     3392 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. 2800 of 1992.

          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                                   342
  STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. G.S. RANDHAWA                  343
            [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
Sti. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel for the respondent,   A
to assist the Court as Amicus 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 accordance with law.

RP.                                           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