MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CHANDIGARH Vs. SHANTIKUNJ INVESTMENT PVT LTD
LAWS(SC)-2006-2-47
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
February 28,2006
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CHANDIGARH
Appellant
VERSUS
SHANTIKUNJ INVESTMENT PVT. LTD
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
K P VARGHESE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER ERNAKULAM [REFERRED TO]KUMARI SHRILEKHA VIDYARTHI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. BHAJAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SUN ENGINEERING WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
C B GAUTAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC VS. MAHADEVA SHETTY [REFERRED TO]
MEGH SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
JAMSHED HORMUSHJI WADIA VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES PORT OF MUMBAI [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE CALCUTTA VS. ALNOORI TOBACCO PRODUCTS [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
IBP CO. LIMITED VS. NAND KISHORE BAJPAI [LAWS(DLH)-2008-2-408] [REFERRED TO]MANPREET SINGH & CO VS. NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2014-9-564] [REFERRED]
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. BAKHSHI RAM [LAWS(PUNCDRC)-2006-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH KUMAR VS. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(NCD)-2007-3-102] [REFERRED]
IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. SURINDER KAUR [LAWS(NCD)-2007-4-31] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP KUMAR VS. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(NCD)-2009-9-34] [REFERRED TO]
KALI CHARAN VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2013-8-336] [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANOTHER VS. VINOD MITTAL & OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2012-10-718] [REFERRED]
SECRETARY, MARKET COMMITTEE, ISMILABAD VS. MEHAR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2011-2-212] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. ZEUS CONSULTANTS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2013-2-264] [REFERRED TO]
KALI CHARAN VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2013-11-257] [REFERRED TO]
PREM CHAND KAUSHAL VS. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(NCD)-2007-10-67] [REFERRED TO]
KUMARESH KUMAR GAUR VS. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. [LAWS(NCD)-2009-3-19] [REFERRED TO]
SUMIT CHAUDHARY VS. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(NCD)-2011-9-35] [REFERRED TO]
U T CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION VS. AMARJEET SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2009-3-135] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH VAISHNAV VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2010-8-20] [REFERRED TO]
NAFE SINGH MALIK VS. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(NCD)-2009-2-67] [REFERRED TO]
MANPREET KAUR VS. MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(NCD)-2010-4-50] [REFERRED TO]
JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JODHPUR VS. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
PANNA LAL KUNDAN AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2012-5-598] [REFERRED]
RAKSHA RANI VS. HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD [LAWS(P&H)-2010-12-75] [REFERRED TO]
V.S.CHAUDHARY VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2023-4-36] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. BAKHSHI RAM [LAWS(NCD)-2006-12-20] [REFERRED]
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. NARESH KUMAR [LAWS(NCD)-2008-3-34] [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. RAJ PATHAK [LAWS(NCD)-2010-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SUNEJA AND SONS [LAWS(NCD)-2011-8-40] [REFERRED TO]
PHOOLAN DEVI AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-496] [REFERRED TO]
RAKSHA RANI VS. HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD & OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2012-9-260] [REFERRED]
RAGHU NATH GUPTA VS. PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING AUTHORITY [LAWS(P&H)-2008-11-62] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER SINGH VS. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH [LAWS(P&H)-2023-4-115] [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. NIDHI MALIK [LAWS(NCD)-2014-3-82] [REFERRED TO]
SURINDER MOHAN VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(NCD)-2006-6-52] [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ISHWAR RAWAT [LAWS(NCD)-2008-3-50] [REFERRED TO]
IMPROVEMENT TRUST, SANGRUR VS. POONAM [LAWS(NCD)-2009-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHA ANAND VS. CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR PUDA [LAWS(NCD)-2010-5-5] [REFERRED TO]
LT COL MANGAL SINGH NAGPAL VS. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(HRCDRC)-2007-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE OFFICER-CUM-SECRETARY AND ORS. VS. PERMANENT LOK ADALAT AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2016-2-11] [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD VS. BISHAMBER DAYAL GOYAL [LAWS(SC)-2014-3-43] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEV AUTHORITY VS. RAGHU NATH GUPTA [LAWS(SC)-2012-8-19] [REFERRED TO]
VASU DEV SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2006-11-67] [REFERRED TO]
AKASH GANGA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2009-1-121] [REFERRED TO]
SH RAGHU NATH GUPTA AND OTHERS VS. PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2006-7-689] [REFERRED]
BRIJ MOHAN VASHISHT VS. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(NCD)-2008-3-26] [REFERRED TO]
BUDHI RAM VS. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(NCD)-2011-2-43] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. VS. PADAM CHAND SUBHASH CHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-1-105] [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD VS. RAJ PAL [LAWS(SC)-2011-2-11] [RELIED ON]
DRS PLASTCHEM PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2023-4-41] [REFERRED TO]
IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. ANIL KUMAR [LAWS(PUNCDRC)-2010-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
NAFE SINGH MALIK VS. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(NCD)-2009-10-35] [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT VS. ANIL DIWAN [LAWS(NCD)-2013-5-78] [REFERRED TO]
RANDHIR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2008-11-87] [REFERRED TO]
NARATA MAL GUPTA AND ORS. VS. UNION TERRITORY ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2009-12-118] [REFERRED TO]
U.T. CHANDIGARH VS. M/S KRISHAN CHAND GANESH DASS VINAY KUMAR AND CO [LAWS(P&H)-2010-5-272] [REFERRED TO]
PALTANBAZAR MUNICIPAL CORPN MARKET DEALERS ASSOCIATION VS. RAFIA SHAH [LAWS(GAU)-2006-11-71] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
A. K. Mathur, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)All these petitions involve common question of law, therefore, these are taken up together for disposal by the common judgment.
(3.)In all these petitions, there are two class of petitions, one filed by the private parties/individuals against the Division Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the Division Bench has not given any relief following its judgment passed in CWP No.13695 of 2001 dated 18-2-2002 [M/s. D.L.G. Builders Private Limited vs. The Advisor to the Administrator, Chandigarh Administration and Ors.]. The relevant portion of that judgment reads as under:
" In our considered view, the allottee is bound to pay the premium and other charges in accordance with the conditions of allotment. If the judgment of M/s. Shanti Kunj Investments Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is read as laying down a proposition that the allottee is not obliged to pay the balance of premium even after raising construction of the building and occupying it on the pretext that beautification of the site has not been done or land-scaping has not been provided or pavement of the tiles has not been done, extremely anomalous consequences would follow inasmuch as, the allottee would construct building and utilize the same by renting out or otherwise and hereby reap huge benefits, but would not pay a single penny towards balance of premium and ground rent etc. Therefore, while examining the complaint of the allottee about the lack of amenities, what the Court is required to consider is whether the basic amenities, electricity, approach road, sewerage and drainage have been provided in the area so as to facilitate construction of the building within the specified time. If such amenities have been provided, the Court will not interdict in the matter and facilitate withholding of the balance of premium, ground rent etc. Rather, it would insist that all the dues of public money are paid by the allottee in accordance with the relevant rules/ regulations and conditions of allotment."
Another class of cases in which the Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh and the Chandigarh Administration have filed the special leave petitions against the order passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the judgment dated 2-2-2002 passed in M/s. Shantikunj Investment Pvt. Ltd. and batch. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under :
" They having failed to provide the basic amenities, the order of resumption and forfeiture cannot be sustained. The impugned orders are, consequently set aside. The respondents are directed to provide the amenities in accordance with law. The needful shall be done within three months. No interest shall be chargeable from the petitioners if they make the entire outstanding amount within three months from the date of the provision of the amenities."
(2.)All these petitions involve common question of law, therefore, these are taken up together for disposal by the common judgment.
(3.)In all these petitions, there are two class of petitions, one filed by the private parties/individuals against the Division Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the Division Bench has not given any relief following its judgment passed in CWP No.13695 of 2001 dated 18-2-2002 [M/s. D.L.G. Builders Private Limited vs. The Advisor to the Administrator, Chandigarh Administration and Ors.]. The relevant portion of that judgment reads as under:
" In our considered view, the allottee is bound to pay the premium and other charges in accordance with the conditions of allotment. If the judgment of M/s. Shanti Kunj Investments Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is read as laying down a proposition that the allottee is not obliged to pay the balance of premium even after raising construction of the building and occupying it on the pretext that beautification of the site has not been done or land-scaping has not been provided or pavement of the tiles has not been done, extremely anomalous consequences would follow inasmuch as, the allottee would construct building and utilize the same by renting out or otherwise and hereby reap huge benefits, but would not pay a single penny towards balance of premium and ground rent etc. Therefore, while examining the complaint of the allottee about the lack of amenities, what the Court is required to consider is whether the basic amenities, electricity, approach road, sewerage and drainage have been provided in the area so as to facilitate construction of the building within the specified time. If such amenities have been provided, the Court will not interdict in the matter and facilitate withholding of the balance of premium, ground rent etc. Rather, it would insist that all the dues of public money are paid by the allottee in accordance with the relevant rules/ regulations and conditions of allotment."
Another class of cases in which the Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh and the Chandigarh Administration have filed the special leave petitions against the order passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the judgment dated 2-2-2002 passed in M/s. Shantikunj Investment Pvt. Ltd. and batch. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under :
" They having failed to provide the basic amenities, the order of resumption and forfeiture cannot be sustained. The impugned orders are, consequently set aside. The respondents are directed to provide the amenities in accordance with law. The needful shall be done within three months. No interest shall be chargeable from the petitioners if they make the entire outstanding amount within three months from the date of the provision of the amenities."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.