2010 (6) TMI 687 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether an order of withdrawal passed by this Court amounts to confirmation/approval of the judgment and order of the High Court and as to whether appellant could be treated differently? Held that - Appeal dismissed. There is nothing on record to show that the tentative price determined by the State could be unreasonable or arbitrary and it is not the case of the allottee that the market value of the land has not been enhanced while deciding the reference under the Act 1894.

Issues Involved:
1. Allotment of residential plot within discretionary quota.
2. Demand for additional price for the residential plot.
3. Application of the doctrine of merger.
4. Parity with other similar cases.
5. Calculation of tentative and additional prices.
6. Procedural fairness and arbitrariness in allotment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Allotment of Residential Plot within Discretionary Quota:
The case reveals an influential person received allotment of a residential plot within 48 hours of application submission. The appellant asserted the right to acquire land at a throwaway price and delayed depositing the sale price for 25 years. The Supreme Court highlighted that such hasty allotment is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court noted, "when a thing is done in a post-haste manner, mala fide would be presumed."

2. Demand for Additional Price for the Residential Plot:
The appellant challenged the additional price demand of Rs. 2,19,000/- issued on 25-3-1992, contending it was arbitrary and unreasonable. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the demand. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, stating the calculations and statutory provisions were correctly applied.

3. Application of the Doctrine of Merger:
The appellant argued the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition by relying on the judgment in Preeta Singh v. Haryana Urban Development Authority. The Court clarified that dismissal of a Special Leave Petition in limine does not mean the High Court's reasoning is affirmed or the judgment merges with the Supreme Court's order. The Court cited various precedents, including Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, to support this view.

4. Parity with Other Similar Cases:
The appellant sought parity with the case of D.S. Laungia, where a similar demand was quashed. The Court ruled that Article 14 does not envisage negative equality and cannot perpetuate illegality or fraud. The Court emphasized, "A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim the benefits on the basis of the wrong decision."

5. Calculation of Tentative and Additional Prices:
The Court examined the statutory provisions and rules governing the calculation of tentative and additional prices. It noted the "tentative price" is determined by the State Government considering various factors, including compensation paid for land acquisition. The "additional price" accounts for enhanced compensation awarded by the court. The Court found the calculations provided by the respondents justified and in accordance with the rules.

6. Procedural Fairness and Arbitrariness in Allotment:
The Court criticized the arbitrary and unreasonable manner of the appellant's allotment within 48 hours, highlighting procedural unfairness. However, it refrained from taking drastic steps to cancel the allotment as the appellant had developed the land.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments. The Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming the demand for additional price and rejecting claims of procedural unfairness and arbitrary calculations. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and ensuring procedural fairness in allotments.

← Previous Next →