The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna opined that no writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be maintainable and/or entertainable for specific performance of the contract if the suit for specific performance is barred by limitation.
Facts
The petitioner entered a Sale Deed with NOIDA (respondent ) whereby the petitioner sold a plot to NOIDA u/s 6 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 and in terms of the Resolution in 102nd meeting of NOIDA. According to the petitioner, Clause No. 12 of the Sale Deed clearly provided that a 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. In addition, it clearly recorded that “Original Farmer” shall also be entitled to “Rehabilitation Bonus”.
After 10 years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed, the petitioner made a representation to NOIDA requesting to allot a plot as agreed in terms of the Sale Deed. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition before the High Court.
Procedural History
Though the said writ petition was filed after a period of 11 years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed and was barred by delay and latches, the High Court entertained and disposed of the same, directing NOIDA to decide the representation of the petitioner. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition by which the petitioner again prayed to allot 10% plot to him. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court by which the High Court dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the petitioner herein, the original writ petitioner has preferred the present special leave petition.
Observations of the Court
The Bench referred to various judgments by the Apex Court and observed that:
“The High Court by passing the order as such did not realise and/or appreciated that the writ petition itself was required to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches as the same was filed after a period of 11 years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed under which the right was claimed…The High Courts have to consider whether the writ petition is filed belatedly and/or the same is barred by latches and/or not, so that in future the person who has approached belatedly may not contend that the fresh cause of action has arisen on rejection of the representation.
Even in a case where earlier representation is rejected, the High Court shall decide the matter on merits… Mere representation does not extend the period of limitation and the aggrieved person must 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…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.”
Apex Court Bench further stated 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".
Judgment
The petition was dismissed.
Case Name: Surjeet Singh Sahni vs State of U.P. and Ors.
Citation: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 3008 OF 2022
Bench: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice B.V. Nagarathna
Decided on: 28th February 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
