2022 (3) TMI 317 - SC - Indian Laws

Prayer for specific performance of Clause 12 of the Sale Deed - plot of 10% area (to be calculated of the total land sold) shall be allotted to the petitioner on payment of 10% of the amount as being paid under the Sale Deed - Original Farmer shall also be entitled to Rehabilitation Bonus or not - HELD THAT - As observed by this Court in catena of decisions, mere representation does not extend the period of limitation and the aggrieved person has to approach the Court expeditiously and within reasonable time. If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a representation and/or directing the authority to decide the representation, once it is found that the original writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches. Such order shall not give an opportunity to the petitioner to thereafter contend that rejection of the representation subsequently has given a fresh cause of action. The High Court has rightly refused to grant any relief which as such was in the form of specific performance of the contract. No writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be maintainable and/or entertainable for specific performance of the contract and that too after a period of 10 years by which time even the suit for specific performance would have been barred by limitation. There is no substance in the present special leave petition and the same deserves to be dismissed - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Sale Deed terms and entitlement to plot allotment.
2. Timeliness of filing writ petition and maintainability of specific performance claim.
3. High Court's jurisdiction to entertain writ petition despite delay.
4. Applicability of limitation period for specific performance claims in writ petitions.
5. Court's discretion in dismissing writ petitions for delay and latches.
6. Suitability of writ petition for specific performance under Article 226.
7. Merits of the High Court's decision on specific performance relief.

Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns a dispute arising from a Sale Deed executed in 2001, where the petitioner sold a plot to NOIDA under specific terms, including entitlement to a plot allotment and a "Rehabilitation Bonus." The petitioner sought the allotment after 10 years, leading to a series of legal actions culminating in a writ petition.

2. The petitioner's delay in seeking allotment, filing the writ petition after 11 years, raised questions on the timeliness and maintainability of the claim for specific performance. The High Court entertained the petition despite the delay, directing NOIDA to decide on the representation, which was made belatedly, potentially reviving a time-barred claim.

3. The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of expeditious legal actions, emphasizing that delays cannot be condoned through representations, especially in writ petitions seeking specific performance. The Court criticized the High Court's approach of allowing belated petitions, leading to fresh causes of action upon rejection of representations.

4. Emphasizing the limitation period for specific performance claims, the Court stated that writ petitions under Article 226 are not suitable for seeking specific performance, especially after significant delays. The Court agreed with the High Court's decision to dismiss the claim for specific performance based on the Sale Deed terms and the delay in seeking relief.

5. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found no merit in the special leave petition and dismissed it, affirming the High Court's decision. The Court's ruling underscored the importance of timely legal actions, dismissing petitions for delay and latches to prevent the revival of time-barred claims through subsequent representations.

6. The judgment serves as a cautionary tale against using writ petitions for specific performance after substantial delays, emphasizing the need for parties to pursue legal remedies promptly to avoid complications arising from delayed actions. The Court's decision reaffirmed the limitations of seeking specific performance through writ petitions under Article 226, especially when significant delays are involved.

7. In conclusion, the Supreme Court's detailed analysis reaffirmed the principles of timeliness and the limitations of seeking specific performance through writ petitions, ultimately upholding the High Court's decision to dismiss the claim for specific performance based on the Sale Deed terms and the petitioner's delayed legal actions.