9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 1134 - SC - Indian LawsRefund 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. Held that - In the instant case, the respondents-allottees accepted the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and possession were taken but they did not raise any construction upto 2000. There was a specific condition that non-construction of building would lead to the resumption of the said plot under the provisions of the Acts and the Rules. As noticed above, when the allottees did not raise construction on the plot, the demand was raised for payment of non-construction fee/extension fee in order to avoid resumption of the plot by the Authority, allottee paid the extension fee. After availing the benefit of extension on payment of extension fee, the allottee sent a letter to the Estate Officer demanding refund of the extension fee on the basis of amended Rule 13 of 1995 Rules. The said demand was rejected by the Estate Officer by passing the reasoned order in compliance of the directions of the High Court. The defaulting allottes of valuable plots cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate by first agreeing to abide by terms and conditions of allotment and later seeking to deny their liability as per the agreed terms. It is evident that the doctrine of election is based on the rule of estoppel the principle that one cannot approbate and reprobate is inherent in it. The doctrine of estoppel by election is one among the species of estoppel in pais (or equitable estoppel), which is a rule of equity. By this law, a person may be precluded, by way of his actions, or conduct, or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he would have otherwise had. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the extension fee charged in excess of the rates mentioned in Rule 13 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995. 2. Applicability of the judgment in Tehal Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. to the present case. 3. Doctrine of "approbate and reprobate" and its relevance to the case. 4. Validity of the retrospective application of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development (General) Second Amendment Rules, 2001. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Extension Fee Charged: The respondent was allotted a plot and was required to complete construction within three years. The respondent claimed that there was no condition for charging an extension fee for failure to complete construction within this period. However, the allotment was subject to the provisions of the Punjab Estates (Development and Regulation Act), 1964, and the Rules and Policies framed thereunder. The Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (PUDA Act) repealed the 1964 Act and introduced new rules, including Rule 13, which specified the time for construction and provided for an extension fee. The Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA) issued a circular revising the extension fee rates, which the respondent paid under protest, alleging an excess charge of Rs. 1.20 lacs. 2. Applicability of the Judgment in Tehal Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors.: The High Court relied on the judgment in Tehal Singh's case, which declared that the extension fee should be calculated as per Rule 13 of the 1995 Rules. The High Court quashed the notices demanding the extension fee and directed a recalculation as per Rule 13. However, the Supreme Court noted that the facts in the present case differed from Tehal Singh's case. In Tehal Singh, the court ruled that the 1995 Rules superseded earlier rates, and the extension fee should be as per the 1995 Rules. The Supreme Court pointed out that the respondent had accepted the terms and conditions of the allotment and paid the extension fee to avoid resumption of the plot. Therefore, the ratio in Tehal Singh's case did not apply. 3. Doctrine of "Approbate and Reprobate": The Supreme Court emphasized the doctrine of "approbate and reprobate," which is a species of estoppel. It implies that once a party has accepted and benefited from a condition, they cannot later challenge it. The respondent, having accepted the terms of the allotment and paid the extension fee to avoid resumption, could not subsequently demand a refund based on amended rules. The court cited several precedents, including C.I.T. vs. Mr. P. Firm Maur and R.N. Gosain vs. Yashpal Dhir, reinforcing that a party cannot accept benefits and then challenge the validity of the underlying conditions. 4. Validity of the Retrospective Application of the 2001 Rules: The appellant framed the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development (General) Second Amendment Rules, 2001, with retrospective effect to validate the enhanced extension fee. The Supreme Court did not delve deeply into the validity of the retrospective application but focused on the respondent's acceptance of the original terms and conditions. The court held that the respondent could not challenge the extension fee after having derived benefits from the extension. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, which had allowed the writ petition based on the Tehal Singh judgment. The Supreme Court concluded that the respondent could not approbate and reprobate by first accepting the terms and conditions of the allotment and later seeking to deny liability. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, with no order as to costs.
|
