Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust vs Krishna Devi on 28 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060701
RSA No.2211 of 1995 and
RSA No.2212 of 1995 -1-
Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:060701
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGAR
1. RSA No.2211 of 1995
The Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust,
Hoshiarpur ... Appellant
Versus
Krishan Devi (mentioned as Krishna Devi
in the trial Court record) ... Respondent
2. RSA No.2212 of 1995
The Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust,
Hoshiarpur ... Appellant
Versus
Sh. Madan Singh ... Respondent
Date of Decision: 28.04.2023
Reserved on: 12.04.2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Argued by: Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate,
Ms. Rammneek Kaur, Advocate and
Mr. Saksham Khunger, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Gurdial Singh Jaswal, Advocate,
for the respondent.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The aforementioned appeals have been preferred against the
judgments and decrees dated 11.05.1995 passed in Civil Appeal No.145 of
1992 and Civil Appeal No.146 of 1992 respectively by learned First
Appellate Court who had upheld/confirmed the judgments and decrees both
dated 29.07.1992 passed in Civil Suit No.83/92 of 1991 titled as Krishna
1 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060701
RSA No.2211 of 1995 and
Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:060701
Devi v. Hoshiarpur City Improvement Trust Hoshiarpur and another and
Civil Suit No.79/92 of 1991 titled as Sh. Madan Singh v. Hoshiarpur City
Improvement Trust, Hoshiarpur. At the outset, it may be mentioned that
during pendency of these appeals, the record of Civil Suit No.79/92 of 1991
had been burnt on 16.06.1998 in a major fire that had broken out in the
record room building of District Courts, Hoshiarpur. The High Court had
given direction to the learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur for re-construction
of the record and some of the record i.e. copies of pleadings in the form of
plaint, written statement, some documents and copy of judgment of trial
Court could be got reconstructed. Unfortunately, the evidence recorded in
the above civil suit as well as the documents exhibited could not be got
reconstructed. However, learned counsel who are representing the parties
before this Court in both these appeals are common. During the course of
arguments, they had been ad idem that both these appeals can conveniently
be decided by a common judgment as the facts of both these cases are
similar, they relate to the same cause of action and common questions of
law have arisen therein. It has also been submitted that the evidence led in
both the cases was also the same except that of statements of plaintiffs who
were different in both the cases. In view of the submissions so made,
arguments had been heard in both these appeals which were same and they
are being decided by this common judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience, this Court will discuss the evidence
led in Civil Suit No.83/92 of 1991 filed by Krishna Devi who is respondent
in RSA No.2211 of 1995. The parties of both the cases shall be referred to
2 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060701
RSA No.2211 of 1995 and
Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:060701
herein in the same order as they were arrayed before the learned trial Court.
3. The common facts of these cases as exposited from the plaints
filed by plaintiff-Krishna Devi and Madan Singh are that the plots bearing
No.123 and 114 both measuring about 150 sq. yards situated in erstwhile
scheme No.11 of Improvement Trust (hereinafter to be referred as
"disputed plots") were allotted to the plaintiffs-Krishna Devi and Madan
Singh respectively by defendant No.1 vide allotment letters dated
19.03.1985 on payment of amount of Rs.17,250/- each. The plaintiffs paid
the sale consideration amount, got the site plan of the disputed plots
approved and raised construction over the same while being in possession
thereof. The sale deed in favour of plaintiff-Krishna Devi qua plot No.123
was executed on 21.01.1987 whereas in respect of plot No.114 it was
executed in favour of plaintiff-Madan Singh on 29.01.1987. The defendants
subsequently issued letters raising demand of enhanced amount of
Rs.13,500/- and otherwise threatened to confiscate the disputed plots. The
plaintiffs sent replies to the two notices as issued by the defendants calling
upon them to explain the criteria on the basis of which the abovesaid
amount was demanded but to no avail. The plaintiffs later on came to know
that the demand was raised by the defendants on the basis of certain
conditions imposed in allotment letter dated 19.03.1985 issued in their
favour by the defendant No.1 and as per the terms of agreement to sell
which was signed by them before execution of sale deed in their favour.
While alleging that the said demand was arbitrary, uncalculated and
violative of principles of natural justice, the plaintiffs prayed for restraining
3 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060701
RSA No.2211 of 1995 and
Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:060701
the defendants from recovering the same or from confiscating the disputed
plots.
4. In the written statements filed in both the suits, the defendants
raised preliminary objections as to locus standi, maintainability and
estoppel. While admitting that the disputed plots were allotted in favour of
the plaintiffs respectively on payment of Rs.17,250/- each, it was asserted
that the plaintiffs had executed agreements and had accepted the terms of
the allotment letter dated 19.03.1985 containing stipulation that the price of
the disputed plots was subject to variation with reference to actual
measurement of the plot as well as in case of enhancement of compensation
by the Land Acquisition Collector or any Court and it was not full and final
payment. It was alleged that due to enhancement of compensation of land of
scheme No.11 which was acquired for the purpose of defendant No.1-Trust
and which included the disputed plots, and being bound by the terms and
conditions of the allotment letter and agreement, the plaintiffs were liable to
pay the enhanced amount of compensation which came to be Rs.13,500/-
each and the defendants were entitled to recover the same. While
controverting the remaining averments, dismissal of the suit had been
prayed for.
5. The plaintiffs filed replications in both the suits controverting the
pleas as taken in the written statement and re-asserting those of the plaint.
Similar issues were culled out by learned trial Court in both the suits which
are as follows:-
1. Whether the defendant-trust cannot recover the amount
4 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060701
RSA No.2211 of 1995 and
Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:060701
of Rs.13,500/- as enhanced price? OPP.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to injunction prayed for on
the allegations made in the plaint? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct
from filing this suit? OPD.
4. Whether the suit is false, frivolous and vexatious? If so,
its effect? OPD.
5. Whether the defendant-trust is entitled to recovery as
per condition of allotment and that of agreement? OPD.
6. Relief.
6. The parties adduced evidence in respect of their respective
assertions. The plaintiff (respondent in RSA No.2211 of 1995) Krishna
Devi examined herself as PW-2 and produced PW-1 Sansar Singh,
Draftsman. In documentary evidence, she placed on record Ex.PW1/A site
plan of the plot allotted in her favour. Ex.P-1 copy of allotment letter dated
19.03.1985, Ex.P-2 copy of sale deed dated 21.01.1987, Ex.P-3 copy of
notice dated 02.12.1988, Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-6 copies of replies to notices
issued by defendant No.1, Ex.P-5 copy of notice issued by defendant on
09.04.1990 and Ex.P-7 copy of agreement dated 06.05.1985, Ex.P-8 copy of
notice dated 21.03.1991. During cross-examination, she identified her
signatures on Ex.D-1 application dated 04.11.1986 and affidavit Ex.D-3.
She admitted that this affidavit was sworn and signed by her.
7. The defendants, on the other hand, examined DW-1 Ved Vias,
Section Officer of defendant-Trust who proved Ex.D-4 copy of resolution
5 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060701
RSA No.2211 of 1995 and
Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:060701
dated 21.10.1985 enhancing rates of residential and commercial plots of the
Trust and DW-2 Surta Singh, Patwari, Improvement Trust who proved
Ex.D-5 to Ex.D-13 which are copies of award No.2 of 1982 issued by Land
Acquisition Collector, Improvement Trust, Hoshiarpur in Land Acquisition
Case No.1 of 1980, the proceedings conducted in that case as well as orders
passed therein. DW-3 deposed that agreement Ex.P-7/Ex.D-14 was scribed
by him and had been signed by the plaintiff-Krishna Devi after accepting
the contents of the same.
8. The learned trial Court on consideration of evidence adduced
before it, proceeded to conclude that the plaintiffs were not liable to make
payment of the amount as demanded by the defendants and decreed both the
suits thereby restraining the defendants from recovering the demanded
amount or from confiscating the disputed plots.
9. Feeling dissatisfied, the instant appeals had been preferred by
defendant No.1-appellant.
10. While assailing the findings as given by learned First Appellate
Court in both the cases, it was strenuously argued by learned counsel for the
appellant that it was well proved on record that the respondents-plaintiffs in
both the cases had admitted the issuance of allotment letters dated
19.03.1985, execution of agreement Ex.P-7 (in case of respondent-plaintiff
Smt. Krishna Devi) and Ex.P-4 (in case of respondent-plaintiff Madan
Singh as reflected from the trial Court judgment) in favour of the appellant.
The acceptance of terms and conditions of the allotment letters/agreements
to sell amounted to an undertaking being given by the respondents that they
6 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060701
RSA No.2211 of 1995 and
Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:060701
would make the payment of enhanced amount of compensation, if any. The
sale deeds in favour of the respondents were executed and registered only
after issuance/execution of allotment letter/agreement to sell by the
respondents. It was not that any new condition was sought to be enforced by
the appellant against the respondents by issuing notices raising demand of
enhanced amount of compensation. The learned trial Court had erred in
observing that no new undertaking or clause could be enforced against the
respondents. The learned First Appellate Court had also not appreciated the
evidence produced on record in a proper perspective and had wrongly held
that the rights and liabilities of the parties to the sale deed were to be
governed by the provisions of the sale deed after execution thereof and no
new clause could be enforced. He stressed that the contract between the
parties had been concluded on execution of sale deed but the terms and
conditions laid down in the agreement and allotment letter were part of the
same and could not be stated to be at variance or violative of principles of
natural justice. The Courts below had also erred in holding that the terms of
agreement executed by the respondents were binding upon the respondents
only till the date when the agreements were finally converted into sale deed.
With these broad submissions, it was stressed that the findings as given by
learned First Appellate Court thereby upholding the judgments and decrees
as passed by learned trial Court in both the cases, were based on
misinterpretation of evidence, were not sustainable in the eyes of law and
hence were liable to be set aside. While concluding, it was urged that the
appeals deserved to be accepted.
7 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060701
RSA No.2211 of 1995 and
Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:060701
11. Per contra, it was argued by learned counsel for the respondents
that the concurrent findings of fact as given by learned Courts below were
well reasoned and did not warrant any interference. Therefore, it was urged
that the appeals being devoid of any merit were liable to be dismissed.
12. In view of the contentions of both the parties, in the opinion of
this Court, the following substantial question of law arises in the instant
appeals:-
"If original allotment letters issued in favour of the respondents
and agreements executed between the parties enabled the
appellant to claim enhanced amount of compensation then
whether the learned Courts below were justified in declining the
same to it?
13. On perusal of the record, it emerges that there has been no dispute
between the parties about the fact that the disputed plots had been allotted in
favour of the respondents on payment of price of Rs.17,250/- each and
agreements Ex.P-7/Ex.D-14 had been executed by the respondent-Krishna
Devi whereas the respondent-Madan Singh had executed agreement Ex.P-4
(as reflected from the judgment of learned trial Court as passed in Civil Suit
No.79/92 of 1991). It is also common case of both the parties that sale deed
Ex.P-2 was executed in favour of the respondent-Smt. Krishna Devi and
sale deed Ex.P-3 (as mentioned in the judgment of trial Court in Civil Suit
No.79/92 of 1991) was executed in favour of the respondent-Madan Singh.
The parties were also in consensus on the point that there was no stipulation
in the sale deeds that the respondents would be liable to pay any enhanced
8 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060701
RSA No.2211 of 1995 and
Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:060701
amount of compensation. However, it is also revealed from the record that
there were stipulations in the allotment letter and agreement to sell as
executed by the respondents that the price of the plots so allotted was
subject to variance with reference to actual measurement of the same at site
and that if at any time, the compensation of the land of erstwhile scheme
No.11 which included the plots allotted in favour of the respondents was
increased by the Land Acquisition Tribunal or by any Court, then the buyers
will have to pay the difference in price of the plot to the appellant. These
terms and conditions were never challenged by the respondents. The
documents produced on record by DW-2 Surta Singh, Patwari have proved
that the rates of plots of scheme No.11 were enhanced by the Land
Acquisition Collector and, therefore, the appellant-Improvement Trust was
obviously required to pay enhanced amount of compensation to the original
land owners. Rather, it is also revealed that the payment of enhanced
compensation had been made to several original land owners by the
appellant during the proceedings conducted before the Land Acquisition
Tribunal. The appellant is not a charitable Trust. It was also bound to pay
the enhanced amount of compensation to the original owner of the acquired
land and the said amount could be arranged by them only by recovering the
same from the allottees of the plots of the scheme No.11. It was not that the
terms and conditions stipulated in the allotment letters and agreements
admittedly executed by the respondents were not within their knowledge.
The respondent-Krishna Devi even admitted submitting affidavit Ex.D-3
before the appellant whereby she agreed to pay the enhanced amount of
9 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060701
RSA No.2211 of 1995 and
Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:060701
compensation in case of increase. It was not the case of the respondents that
they had been misled or misinformed about the terms and conditions as
stipulated in these documents in any manner whatsoever. The terms and
conditions of the allotment letter and agreement as executed and accepted
by the respondents were the very basis of execution and registration of sale
deeds in respect of the disputed plots in their favour and by no stretch of
imagination, they can be stated to be at variance. These terms and
conditions could not be stated to be contrary to public policy at all. By
voluntarily accepting the conditions imposed by the appellant while issuing
allotment letter and by signing agreements, the respondents-plaintiffs had
entered into the realm of a concluded contract pure and simple with the
appellant and were bound by the terms of the same. It was not that the
appellant-Trust wanted to usurp the amount demanded for difference and it
was only additional cost of the land of disputed plots that was sought to be
recovered by it. The said action cannot at all be stated to be contrary to
public policy. The demand as made by the appellant-Trust as of enhanced
price of the plots allotted/sold by it to the respondents, cannot but be held to
suffer from any illegality or infirmity. It follows, therefore, that there would
be no legal or constitutional bar upon the appellant demanding enhanced
price for the plots sold/allotted by it consequent upon increase in the
compensation awarded to the owners of the acquired land, if according to
the terms and conditions of the allotment or any agreement executed by the
respondents, the appellant was empowered to do so as in the present case.
14. Resultantly, the findings as given by the Courts below thereby
10 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060701
RSA No.2211 of 1995 and
Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:060701
restraining the appellant from demanding the enhanced price of the disputed
plots cannot be sustained. The same are accordingly reversed. The
impugned judgments as passed by learned First Appellate Court are set
aside. The appeals are allowed. There is no order as to costs.
15. Miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(MANISHA BATRA)
28.04.2023 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060701
11 of 11
