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





Cited Judgements :-

JAYAMMA VS. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU REGION [LAWS(KAR)-2020-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
EVEREST FINCAP PVT. LTD. VS. KRISHNA REALTORS [LAWS(BOM)-2017-8-139] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHULEELA BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(BOM)-2019-11-77] [REFERRED TO]
HANUMANBUX UMADUTT VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MEGH)-2019-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
M/S UNITED BREWERIES LTD. VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2017-1-143] [REFERRED TO]
DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCIATION HANUMANGARH VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-11-31] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. N.MURUGESAN [LAWS(SC)-2021-10-27] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI NARAYAN VERMA VS. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELD LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2016-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
BEENA AMBALAL MAHIDA VS. THE PRESIDENT/SECRETARY [LAWS(GJH)-2016-8-45] [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CANARA BANK HEAD OFFICE VS. A C PERIYASWAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2017-2-487] [REFERRED TO]
PYARELAL AND ANOTHER VS. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. AND OTHERS [LAWS(CHH)-2017-9-59] [REFERRED TO]
R. SUNDARAM VS. RAJA THEATERS [LAWS(MAD)-2019-9-608] [REFERRED TO]
T.MATHEW ABRAHAM VS. STATE LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT [LAWS(KER)-2020-11-352] [REFERRED TO]
INTERNATIONAL TRADE LINK VS. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2018-2-37] [REFERRED TO]
SODHA TAGAJI A. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
MATHEW ABRAHAM VS. STATE LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(KER)-2020-11-886] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. UTTAM SUGAR MILLS LTD., VS. UTTAR PRADESH POWER CORPORATION LIMITED (UPPCL) & ANOTHER [LAWS(APTE)-2014-10-16] [REFERRED TO]
KANAK PROJECTS LTD. VS. STEWARTS & LLOYDS OF INDIA LTD. [LAWS(CAL)-2019-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
H P S I D C LTD VS. KANOL HERBALS (P) LTD & ORS [LAWS(HPH)-2018-3-119] [REFERRED TO]
PUTUL GAYEN & ORS. VS. PIJUSH BAIRAGI & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2016-9-170] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. KUSUM LATA BANSAL VS. SRI AVADHESH KUMAR GUPTA [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-101] [REFERRED TO]
VIPIN KUMAR AND 11 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P AND 2 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-10-152] [REFERRED TO]
AMRIT BAZAR PATRIKA PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-251] [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.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.