HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.690 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 14.01.2011 **** Pankaj Jain . . . . Petitioner VS. DN Taneja, Chairman, Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.09.2010 (Annexure P14) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services, UT Chandigarh, whereby, his application for settlement of the dispute has been rejected. (2). The petitioner is said to have paid the earnest money of Rs.3 lacs to respondent No.3 for a residential plot measuring 250 sq.yards to be developed in the urban estates of SAS Nagar, Mohali by respondents No.1 and 2 - Developers. The petitioner sought an order from the Permanent Lok Adalat to direct respondents No.1&2 to transfer the plot in his name in their records. The CWP No.690 of 2011.doc - 2 – permanent Lok Adalat has rejected the claim after observing as follows:- “Shri Ram Foods – respondent No.3 made a payment of Rs.3 lacs to respondents No.1 and 2 vide receipt C-1 dated 1.06.2005. It is specifically noticed that the aforesaid amount of Rs.3 lacs in an “Advance Against Future Project for 250 Sq.Yds. Plot”. Other terms and conditions i.e. the value of the plot, mode of payment etc. had not been stated by any writing. However, during the course of discussion, it has come to light and admitted too by respondents No.1 and 2 that the proposed plot/plots were valued at Rs.6500 per square yard. This way, the value of the plot measuring 250 square yard comes to Rs.16,25,000/-. Here in the present case, the petitioner has sought a direction to be given to the respondents No.1 and 2 to transfer the plot in his name. Since as per the case of the complainant, he had paid a sum of Rs.3 lacs towards the p lot intended to be purchased; the complainant in fact seeks specific performance of the contract. However, the complainant somehow has not offered/tendered the remaining sale consideration. Thus as per the case set up by the complainant, the appropriate remedy was to seek a specific performance of the alleged contract in accordance with law. Such a dispute can appropriately be decided in a court of law. There is a contradiction in the stand of the petitioner in as much as per the complaint M/s. Shri Ram Foods – respondent No.3 sold the plot to one Smt. Seema Taak – respondent No.4, who in turn is stated to have sold to the petitioner. Averment made in para 4 of the complainant contradicts its stand in the registered notice – Annexure C-8 given by Sh. Suman Jain, Advocate wherein it is specifically mentioned that the complainant purchased the plot from Smt. Seema Taak – respondent No.4. Besides CWP No.690 of 2011.doc - 3 – it; there is no document on record on the basis of which it could be inferred that the contesting respondents agreed to transfer the plot from Shri Ram Foods to the complainant or in any manner committed themselves by any act of omission and commission. Thus there is no manner of doubt that there has been no privity of contract vis a vis the complaint/the petitioner and respondents No.1 & 2. Whether the petitioner comes in the foot steps of M/s. Shri Ram Foods – respondent No.3 and can lay claim for specific performance of the contract executed by respondent No.3 is a matter which needs a close scrutiny after permitted the parties to lead evidence and then examining the maintainability of the claim and the relief to which he is entitled….” (3). As may be seen, no allotment whatsoever was ever made by respondents No.1&2 in favour of the petitioner or respondent No.3. Similarly no payment was ever received by respondents No.1 & 2 from the petitioner. The Permanent Lok Adalat appears to be right in observing that there being an agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.3 to which respondents No.1&2 are not a party, the specific performance of the agreement can be sought against the respondent No.3 only. The claim for refund of the amount raised by the petitioner would also lie against respondent No3. (4). No interference with the impugned order dated 24.09.2010 (Annexure P 14) is, therefore, called for by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. CWP No.690 of 2011.doc - 4 – (5). Dismissed. 14.01.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge