REPORTABLE    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1749 OF 2008

THE ESTATE OFFICER, PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ...Appellant

                 VS.

JAGTAR SINGH AND ORS.  ...Respondents              

     JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.

1. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated  7th December,  2006  passed  in  C.O.C.P.No.1286  of 2005.  It may be necessary to refer to the bare facts. 2. The  respondent  No.1-contempt  petitioner/allottee has approached the High Court with a grievance that the appellant-Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (for short “PUDA”) through its successor Greater Mohali Area  Development  Authority  (for  short  “GMADA”)  has charged excess  rates for allotment of plots.  Pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court, the rate was reduced  from  Rs.3600/-  to  Rs.1400/-  per  square  yard. Thereafter,  the  respondent-contempt  petitioner/allottee filed Civil Writ Petition No.2851 of 2005 for payment of interest which has been disposed of by judgment dated 21st

1

March, 2005.  The judgment reads as follows:- “We have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner.  The  petitioner  has  invoked  the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the  interest  upon  the  amount  which  has  been refunded.

We are afraid that such kind of indulgence cannot be granted unless justice demand notice is served upon the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further states  that  the  petition  be  dismissed  as withdrawn with liberty to serve justice demand notice upon the respondents.  If such a notice is served upon the respondents within 15 days from today, the respondents shall take conscious and cautious decision thereon within two months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Disposed of.”

3. Since there was no response from the PUDA within the  time  stipulated  by  the  High  Court,  the respondent-allottee  filed  Contempt  Petition  No.1286  of 2005.   During  the  pendency  of  the  Contempt  Petition, order  dated  20th January,2006  was  passed  declining  to grant interest saying that there was no policy to make payment for interest.  The order reads as follows:-

“To Col.Jagtar Singh (Retd.) D-89,D Block, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar.

No. /2006/1677-78 dated 20.01.2006 Subject: Regarding allotment of Plot No.69, Sector-

   69, Mohali-CWP No.2851 of 2005.

2

In connection with the above cited subject it is intimated that PUDA doesn't have any policy according  to  which  interest  could  be  paid. Accordingly, the Justice Demand Notice sent by you has been filed after due consideration.

Sd/- Estate Officer, PUDA, Mohali.”

4. It appears that the High Court directed the PUDA to file an affidavit on the following terms. The order reads as follows:-

“As  requested  by  learned  counsel  for  the respondents, adjourned to 25.09.2006.

Meanwhile, the affidavit, if any, be filed explaining:-[i]  what  was  the  rate  of  interest charged from the petitioner;[ii] whether the said interest has been included in the refund made to the  petitioner  in  terms  of  the  order  passed  by this Court; and [iii] why the respondents are not liable to pay interest on the refund amount.

Affidavit, if any, be filed within one week from today.”

Accordingly, the Estate Officer, PUDA filed an affidavit. The affidavit reads as follows:-

“I,  the  deponent  above  named  do  hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:- 1. That the case mentioned supra had come up for  hearing  on  1.8.2016,  on  which  date,  a direction for filing an affidavit on the issues mentioned therein, was made.  Subsequently, by means  of  another  order  dated  9.10.2006,  the matter  was  adjourned  to  7.12.2006  and  the requisite affidavit was directed to be filed.

3

2. That  it  is  clarified  that  interest  @  15% p.a.  was  charged  from  the  petitioner  in consonance with the provisions of the Allotment letter.   No  interest  has  been  paid  on  the refunded amount.  The respondents are not liable to  pay  any  interest  on  the  refunded  amount because  no  policy  exists  in  PUDA  for  paying interest on the refund amount. 3. That it is pertinent to mention here that in consonance with the orders dated 21.3.2005 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No.2851 of 2005, a letter  dated  20.1.2006  was  sent  to  the petitioner, wherein the decision of the Justice Demand Notice was conveyed to him.  A copy of the same is appended herewith as Annexure CR-1. 4. That it is not out of place to mention here that the decision to reduce the amount payable by the petitioner, from Rs.3600/- to Rs.1400/- was made by the authorities themselves on 24.4.2003, on  a  representation  having  been  made  by  the petitioner  on  15.03.2002  for  being  considered similarly as Subedar Anokh Singh in CWP No.11871 of  1997.   The  petitioner  did  not  have  to  go through  any  protracted  litigation  on  that account.   Accordingly,  the  amount  of Rs.14,28,713/-  was  immediately  refunded  to  the petitioner  on  20.06.2003  by  means  of  Cheque No.057376.  As such, PUDA is not liable to pay any interest on the same, more so in view of the fact that PUDA does not have any policy of paying interest on any refund amount as also the fact that no such clause for paying interest on refund amount exists in the Allotment letter.”

5. When the matter came up before the High Court in the contempt jurisdiction, based on the affidavit, the following order was passed:

“The  facts  are  hardly  in  dispute.  It  is admitted that the petitioner was charged interest @ 15% per annum but no interest has been paid on the refund amount “because no policy exists in PUDA for paying interest on the refund amount”.

4

The plea taken by the respondents that the interest  is  not  payable  because  there  exists  no policy,  can  neither  be  sustained  in  law  nor  in equity.  Once, this Court found that the rate of Rs.3600/- fixed by PUDA for the plots in question was excessive and it could not have been more than Rs.1400/- per sq.yard, there can be no exception but to hold that the petitioner was unauthorizedly charged  at  a  higher  rate.   Admittedly,  he  paid interest @ 15% per annum.  The respondents cannot take  advantage  of  their  own  wrongs.   The petitioner, therefore, is entitled for the refund of the excess amount at the same rate of interest which he had paid to the respondents.

At  the  same  time,  there  being  a  serious dispute with regard to the interpretation of the orders passed by this Court, respondents cannot be said to be guilty of willful and deliberate breach of such orders.

Consequently, this petition is disposed of with a clarificatory direction that on the excess amount,  which  has  already  been  refunded  to  the petitioner, he shall be paid interest @ 15% per annum, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Rule discharged.”

6. Aggrieved the Estate Officer, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority has filed this appeal. 7. Having  heard  learned  counsel  appearing  on  both sides,  we  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  refer  to  the contentions or to the legal position except to reiterate the  settled  position  that  normally  in  a  contempt jurisdiction the Court shall not enter upon adjudication of a dispute. Maybe the applicant in a contempt petition is entitled to some relief but relief has to be granted after  proper  adjudication  of  the  dispute  because  only

5

after a proper adjudication, it will be clear as to what will be the actual relief, if any and if at all, that has to be granted to the aggrieved person.  Apparently, in the  instant  case,  no  such  adjudication  has  been  made except to pass an order in equity. The situation would have  been  different  had  it  been  a  case  of  mere implementation or execution of an otherwise clear order or direction.  In the instant case there is   no   decree or order on entitlement for interest. 8. Having  regard  to  the  submissions  made  by  the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, we are of the view that this matter needs adjudication regarding the  entitlement  of  interest.   Therefore,  without expressing any opinion on the various submissions made by the  counsel  on  both  sides,  we  set  aside  the  impugned judgment passed by the High Court. 9. Further, liberty is granted to the respondent to challenge the order dated 20th January, 2006 before the appropriate forum.  We, therefore, make it clear that in case such a challenge is made within a period of one month from today, the same may not be dismissed on the ground of delay.  If such a challenge is made, having regard  to  the  fact  that  the  parties  have  been  in litigation for more than a decade, we request the forum concerned  to  dispose  of  the  matter  expeditiously  and preferably within a period of one year from the date of institution.  Needless also to say that it will be open

6

to  the  parties  to  raise  all  contentions  which  are available to them as per law. 10. The civil appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

.........................J.                 [KURIAN JOSEPH]              

.........................J.      [R.BANUMATHI]                

New Delhi; July 19, 2017.

7