Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Triple-M Institute Of Study ... vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 29 October, 2024
Author: Arun Palli
Bench: Arun Palli
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142505-DB
C.W.P. No. 25899 of 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 25899 of 2024
Date of decision: 29.10.2024
M/s Triple-M Institute of Study Material & Online Classes Pvt. Ltd.
.... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. Rajiv Dhawan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Shekhar Verma, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
ARUN PALLI, J (Oral)
The petitioner (M/s Triple-M Institute of Study Material &
Online Classes Pvt. Ltd.) has prayed for the following substantive relief:
"Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of
India for the issuance of an appropriate Order, Direction or
Writ, especially in the nature of:
Certiorari, thereby quashing the Impugned Order dated
29.08.2024 (P-6) passed by the respondent no.3, being illegal,
arbitrary, perverse and against the settled canons of natural
justice;
Mandamus, thereby directing the respondents to refund the
amount of Rs.1,17,44,345/- (One Crore Seventeen Lakhs
Forty-Four thousand three hundred Forty-five rupees only)
alongwith 18% penal interest, from the date of deposit, for
causing huge financial losses as well as mental harassment to
the petitioner, in the interest of justice;"
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents
No.2 and 3 had conducted an auction on July 07, 2021, for allotment of
certain sites/plots. Accordingly the petitioner, who had participated in the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142505-DB
said auction, was adjudged as the highest bidder (H1), for it had submitted a
bid for Rs.1,21,86,090/-. Resultantly, SCO No. 11 measuring 130 square
yards was allotted to it vide letter of allotment dated September 06, 2021 (P-
4). He submits that the limited grievance that the petitioner has is: even
though years have rolled by, but neither the authorities have delivered actual
physical possession of the allotted site, to date, nor refunded the amount.
Faced with these circumstances, the petitioner had approached this Court
vide CWP No. 5192 of 2024, which was disposed of on March 13, 2024, on
the statement of learned counsel for the respondents that, as the competent
authority was already in seisin of the concerns/grievances of the petitioner,
the matter be disposed of to enable the authorities to pass the necessary
orders. However, he submits that the respondents, in compliance to the order
passed by this Court, have since rejected the claim of the petitioner vide
impugned order dated August 29, 2024. He submits that apparently, the
reasons that formed basis of the impugned order, are palpably erroneous, for
it is recorded that possession of the allotted site could not be delivered to the
petitioner as an order of status quo, granted by the Supreme Court on March
18, 2024, was in operation. And, therefore, the amount deposited by the
petitioner could not be refunded either. It is submitted that, in fact, Civil
Suit No. 9295 of 2019 (Sukhwinder Singh vs. Kartar Singh and others) is
pending before the civil court at Ludhiana, wherein, the plaintiff claims to be
the owner of 1/4th share in the land measuring 18 Bigha 1 Biswa and 9
Biswani, comprised in specific khasra numbers situated in village Daad,
Tehsil and District Ludhiana, on the basis of the Will executed in the year
1992. And, he has also sought a declaration that mutation in favour of one
Gurcharan Kaur @ Charan Kaur, on the basis of natural succession, was
erroneous and void. It is submitted that Gurcharan Kaur @ Charan Kaur
had executed the sale deed in favour of Greater Ludhiana Area Development
Authority (GLADA), qua land measuring 8 acres, which had since been
utilized by the authorities for a housing project. He asserts that the
application moved by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was
rejected by the trial court on April 16, 2021. Similarly, even the appeal
preferred against the said order was dismissed on August 18, 2021.
However, the Civil Revision No. 2902 of 2021, preferred by the plaintiff
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142505-DB
before this Court, was disposed of by the learned Single Judge, with certain
observations, vide judgment and order dated February 28, 2023. But,
aggrieved by the said order, defendants filed Special Leave Petition
(No.10175 of 2023) before the Supreme Court, in which, initially order of
status quo, dated March 18, 2024 was passed. And, now the matter has
finally been disposed of vide order dated October 18, 2024:
"Heard learned senior counsel for the respective parties at
length. We are of the opinion that since the respondent(s) -
plaintiff (s) have failed to make out a prima facie case before
the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, there is
absolutely no occasion for the High Court to have granted
such a relief to the respondent(s)-plaintiff(s) without having
gone into the essential aspects of the prima facie case in
favour of the respondent (s) - plaintiff (s). For this reason
alone, the order dated 28.02.2023 cannot be sustained. We
allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 28.02.2023
passed by the High Court.
Since respondent (s)- plaintiff (s) are claiming right
only on the one-fourth of the property which is presently not
a part of the project, in case any third-party interests are
created on that one-fourth of the property or any
construction is made, the appellant (s) - defendant (s) shall
inform the respondent(s)- plaintiff (s) as well as Court
concerned with two weeks prior notice/as early as possible.
4. Under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, we also request the Court concerned to dispose of the
suit as far as possible within six months from today, possibly
on a day-to-day hearing."
Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondents submit, the
authorities can deliver actual physical possession, free from all
encumbrances, of the subject site/plot, to the petitioner forthwith. Further, it
is submitted that the petitioner also has the option to even seek refund of the
entire amount deposited.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142505-DB
In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
apparently, the petitioner is a victim of negligence and insensitive approach
of the respondent authorities, for the property, that was a subject matter of
dispute before the civil Court, was put to auction and the petitioner was kept
in dark all through. And, that being so, it is urged that the petitioner would
rather require the respondent authorities to refund the entire amount that was
deposited with interest, without any further delay.
To this, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
requisite amount deposited by the petitioner, with up to date interest, from
the due date, would be refunded, within three weeks from today. He submits
that let the petition be disposed of, to enable the competent authority to work
out the amount the petitioner is entitled to be refunded, with interest, from
the date the petitioner would be entitled to. Further, he submits that before
any formal orders are passed in this regard, the petitioner shall also be heard,
for which a formal communication would be issued, well in advance.
Learned counsel for petitioner is agreeable to the course
suggested by the learned counsel for the respondents and submits that let this
petition be disposed of in terms of the statement made by him.
In the wake of the position sketched out above, and in terms of
the statement made by learned counsel for the parties, this petition is
accordingly disposed of.
(ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE
29.10.2024
deepak
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
