State of Punjab & ors. v. G.S. Randhawa

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. B.S. Chauhan
Swatanter Kumar
(JJ)
Judgment Date: 2010-06-03
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed; High Court judgment dated 06.12.2006 is set aside; the Demand Notice is upheld; the appellant is entitled to recover in accordance with law.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Punjab & Ors.

Respondents

G.S. Randhawa

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Vijay Hansaria
• Ashok Mathur

Counsels for Respondents

• Vijay Hansaria (Amicus Curiae)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Civil Appeal arises from a petition challenging a demand for additional price under the Punjab Urban Estate (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965. The Supreme Court hears counsel for the appellant and notes that the respondent did not enter appearance. Relying on the decision in Smt. Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors., (2010) 7 SCR 317, the Court states that, for the reasons recorded in Civil Appeal No. 5292 of 2004 (the Fuljit Kaur decision) decided on this date, the appeal must be allowed. The High Court’s December 6, 2006 order is set aside and the Demand Notice is upheld. The appellant is entitled to recover the additional price in accordance with law. The decision clarifies that liability to pay additional price under the Punjab Urban Estate Rules can be enforced consistent with the Fuljit Kaur framework, upholding the validity of the demand and permitting recovery by the State. The judgment thus resolves the previous split on allotment price adjustments and prescribes a uniform approach for enforcing such recoveries in analogous cases going forward.

Provisions of Law Cited

Punjab Urban Estate (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Appellants contended that the demand notice under the Punjab Urban Estate (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965 was valid and recoverable in accordance with law, relying on the decision in Smt. Fuljit Kaur.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents did not enter appearance; no substantive counter-arguments recorded in the brief provided.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Smt. Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors	[2010] 7 SCR 317	Positive	Cited and relied upon by the Court; used to justify upholding the State's demand and to align the current decision with Fuljit Kaur's framework.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## [2010] 7 S.C.R. 342 A ## STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ## _v._ ## G.S. RANDHAWA > (Civil Appeal No. 3392 of 2007) B ## JUNE 3, 2010 [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: E (2010] 7 SCR 317 relied on para 2 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.