STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. DHANJIT SINGH SANDHU
LAWS(SC)-2014-3-25
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
March 14,2014
STATE OF PUNJAB
Appellant
VERSUS
Dhanjit Singh Sandhu
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX MADRAS O V R SV SR ARUNACHALAM CRETTAR VS. V MR P FIRM MUAR O R M O M A M CHIDAMBARAM CHETTIAR THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MADRAS O RM SP SV FIRM [REFERRED TO]MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. BALWANT REGULAR MOTOR SERVICE AMRAVATI [REFERRED TO]
R N GOSAIN VS. YASHPAL DHIR [REFERRED TO]
P R DESHPANDE VS. MARUTI BALARAM HAIBATTI [REFERRED TO]
BABU RAM ALIAS DURGAPRASAD VS. INDRAPALSINGH DEAD [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT VS. DIAMOND AND GEM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
VIJAY ARJUN BHAGAT VS. KISAN LAHANU BHAGAT DECEASED [LAWS(BOM)-2023-4-246] [REFERRED TO]SMT. KUSUM LATA BANSAL VS. SRI AVADHESH KUMAR GUPTA [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-101] [REFERRED TO]
AMRIT BAZAR PATRIKA PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-251] [REFERRED TO]
H P S I D C LTD VS. KANOL HERBALS (P) LTD & ORS [LAWS(HPH)-2018-3-119] [REFERRED TO]
MATHEW ABRAHAM VS. STATE LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(KER)-2020-11-886] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. KARUNESH KUMAR [LAWS(SC)-2022-12-30] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH S. MADIWAL VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-8-535] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL SUBHASH EKHANDE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHULEELA BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(BOM)-2019-11-77] [REFERRED TO]
JAIRUDDIN SHAIK VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2020-9-91] [REFERRED TO]
PYARELAL AND ANOTHER VS. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. AND OTHERS [LAWS(CHH)-2017-9-59] [REFERRED TO]
SAGAR SAHU VS. GOVERNMENT NAGARJUNA POST GRADUATE COLLEGE OF SCIENCE [LAWS(CHH)-2023-11-42] [REFERRED TO]
SAJJAN KUMAR YADAV VS. RAJASTHAN STATE ROADWAYS TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
INTERNATIONAL TRADE LINK VS. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2018-2-37] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. N.MURUGESAN [LAWS(SC)-2021-10-27] [REFERRED TO]
SATAVAHANA CO-EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2024-4-64] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL AZIZ VS. CHEMBUKANDY SAFFIYA [LAWS(KER)-2022-7-51] [REFERRED TO]
PHOOLESHWARI PANDRE VS. HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD [LAWS(MPH)-2023-5-119] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. UTTAM SUGAR MILLS LTD., VS. UTTAR PRADESH POWER CORPORATION LIMITED (UPPCL) & ANOTHER [LAWS(APTE)-2014-10-16] [REFERRED TO]
R. SUNDARAM VS. RAJA THEATERS [LAWS(MAD)-2019-9-608] [REFERRED TO]
EVEREST FINCAP PVT. LTD. VS. KRISHNA REALTORS [LAWS(BOM)-2017-8-139] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI NARAYAN VERMA VS. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELD LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2016-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
HANUMANBUX UMADUTT VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MEGH)-2019-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
ABAD BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-5-135] [REFERRED TO]
BEENA AMBALAL MAHIDA VS. THE PRESIDENT/SECRETARY [LAWS(GJH)-2016-8-45] [REFERRED TO]
SODHA TAGAJI A. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
T.MATHEW ABRAHAM VS. STATE LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT [LAWS(KER)-2020-11-352] [REFERRED TO]
KANAK PROJECTS LTD. VS. STEWARTS & LLOYDS OF INDIA LTD. [LAWS(CAL)-2019-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
PUTUL GAYEN & ORS. VS. PIJUSH BAIRAGI & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2016-9-170] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH SINGH VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-1-96] [REFERRED TO]
DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCIATION HANUMANGARH VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-11-31] [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CANARA BANK HEAD OFFICE VS. A C PERIYASWAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2017-2-487] [REFERRED TO]
M/S UNITED BREWERIES LTD. VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2017-1-143] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEK TRADERS VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. [LAWS(NCD)-2023-12-96] [REFERRED TO]
KU. SARASWATI GUPTA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-1-30] [REFERRED TO]
GARDEN A-1 CHSL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2024-3-76] [REFERRED TO]
SHIRDI NAGAR PANCHAYAT VS. KISHOR SHARAD BORAWAKE [LAWS(SC)-2023-9-65] [REFERRED TO]
JAYAMMA VS. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU REGION [LAWS(KAR)-2020-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
SHARAYU D/O ASHOK GOKHALE VS. NAGPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(BOM)-2022-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
VIPIN KUMAR VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-3-205] [REFERRED TO]
VIPIN KUMAR AND 11 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P AND 2 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-10-152] [REFERRED TO]
MUMTAZ YARUD DOWLA WAKF VS. BADAM BALAKRISHNA HOTEL PVT. LTD [LAWS(SC)-2023-10-62] [REFERRED TO]
DRS PLASTCHEM PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2023-4-41] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB UNIVERSITY VS. ISHITA UPPAL [LAWS(P&H)-2023-1-73] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 8.1.2009 passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No.8864 of 2007 and also order dated 27.3.2009 passed in Review Petition No. 112 of 2009, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed and the order dated 23.12.2004 passed by appellant no.3 rejecting the application for refund of the extension fee received by the appellant in excess of the rates mentioned in Rule 13 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (in short '1995 Act') in the light of the judgment passed in C.W.P. No.13648 of 1998 (Tehal Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors.) along with up-to-date interest has been set aside.
(2.)The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.
(3.)The respondent was allotted a plot of land measuring 400 square yards bearing No.2177 at Durgi Road, Urban Estate Phase-II, Ludhiana vide allotment letter dated 1.4.1986. In terms of allotment, the respondent was required to complete the construction of building within three years from the date of issuance of the allotment letter after getting the plans of the proposed building approved by the competent Authority. The case of the respondent-writ petitioner is that there was no condition in the allotment letter for charging extension fee in the case of failure to complete construction of the building within the aforementioned period of three years nevertheless as per clause 15 of the allotment letter, the allotment was subject to the provisions of Punjab Estates (Development and Regulation Act), 1964 and the Rules and Policies framed thereunder.
(2.)The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.
(3.)The respondent was allotted a plot of land measuring 400 square yards bearing No.2177 at Durgi Road, Urban Estate Phase-II, Ludhiana vide allotment letter dated 1.4.1986. In terms of allotment, the respondent was required to complete the construction of building within three years from the date of issuance of the allotment letter after getting the plans of the proposed building approved by the competent Authority. The case of the respondent-writ petitioner is that there was no condition in the allotment letter for charging extension fee in the case of failure to complete construction of the building within the aforementioned period of three years nevertheless as per clause 15 of the allotment letter, the allotment was subject to the provisions of Punjab Estates (Development and Regulation Act), 1964 and the Rules and Policies framed thereunder.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.