M/S. GREATER ASHOKA AND LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY versus KANTI PRASAD JAIN (D) THROUGH LRS.
[2023] 16 S.C.R. 933, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Issues
[2023] 16 S.C.R. 933 : 2023 INSC 1055
933
CASE DETAILS
M/S. GREATER ASHOKA AND LAND DEVELOPMENT 
COMPANY 
v.
KANTI PRASAD JAIN (D) THROUGH LRS.
(C.A. No.7990-7991 of 2023)
DECEMBER 06, 2023
[VIKRAM NATH AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether in a matter pertaining to speciﬁ c 
performance of the contract for allotment of plot, the refund of earnest 
money after a period of sixty years was reasonable.
Speciﬁ c performance – Contract for allotment of plot – Suit 
for speciﬁ c performance of the contract – Decreed by the trial court 
directing execution of sale deed – However, set aside by the lower 
appellate court, directing refund of earnest money with interest – High 
Court set aside the said order passed by the lower appellate court, 
upholding that of the trial court – Correctness:
Held: Perusal of the prayer made in the suit shows that in the 
alternative, only refund of earnest money along with interest has not been 
claimed, rather the buyer claimed adequate damages, which may include 
refund of the earnest money along with interest – Merely refunding 
the earnest money paid, after sixty years would be unreasonable as the 
respondent, after booking the plot, has been waiting all along as even in the 
litigation since 1986 – Price of the land in the area has increased manifold 
for the last sixty years – In the interest of justice, the impugned judgment 
and decree of the High Court is modiﬁ ed to the extent that instead of getting 
the sale
deed of the plot registered, the contractor to pay stipulated amount 
as full and ﬁ nal settlement of claim in the suit. [Paras 11, 13]

934 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Kanshi Ram v. Om Prakash Jawal and others (1996) 4 SCC 593 – 
referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7990-7991 
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.05.2018 of the High Court 
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No.2956 of 1998 (O&M) and 
CO No.16-C/1998.
Appearances:
Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Ms. Deepika Kalia, Keshav Khandelwal, Gaurav 
Sharma, Dhawal Mohan, Prateek Bhatia, Paranjay Tripathi, Advs. for the 
Appellant.
Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv., Umang Shankar, Aniket Jain, Sanjay 
Singh, Vidyut Kayarkar, Advs. for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
Leave granted.
2. The order1 passed by the High Court2 in Second Appeal3, vide which 
the judgment4 of the lower Appellate Court5 was reversed and that of the 
Trial Court6 was restored, is impugned in the present appeal.
1 
Order dated 02.05.2018.
2 
Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
3 
Regular Second Appeal No. 2956 of 1998
4 
Order dated 07.08.1988
5 
Additional District Judge (I), Faridabad
6 
Order dated 29.03.1966 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad
935
3. The suit7 ﬁ led by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents 
(hereinafter described as ‘the respondent’) for speciﬁ c performance of 
contract was decreed by the Trial Court. In appeal, the lower Appellate Court 
reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court directing execution of 
the sale deed, however, granted the relief of refund of earnest money given 
by the respondent as part sale consideration along with interest. The High 
Court ﬁ nally upheld the judgment and decree of the Trial Court after setting 
aside the judgment of the lower Appellate Court.
4. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that lay out plan 
of Ashoka Enclave Extension, Part-III, situated at Faridabad, developed 
by the appellant was approved in the year 1961. In 1963, an advertisement 
was issued by the appellant inviting applications from the public for sale 
of plots at the cost of ₹25/- per square yard. The respondent paid ₹500/- 
and ₹950/- towards provisional booking of plot No. 103, for which the 
receipts were issued on 01.11.1963 and 09.11.1963, respectively. As per 
the conditions of sale,25% of the cost was to be paid as earnest money, 
however, the same was not paid. Even the subsequent payments which were 
spread over, commensurate with the development of the project were also 
not made by the respondent. On 22.11.1963, the 1963 Act8 was enacted. The 
area, on which the colony was being developed, was declared as part of the 
controlled area. The appellant
got relevant permission from the competent 
authority under the 1963 Act with the approval of the new lay out plan on 
11.04.1969. After six years of booking the plot, two further payments of 
₹1165/- each were made by the respondent. While the appellant was in 
the process of complying with the conditions laid down in the permission 
granted under the 1963 Act, new 1971 Act9 was notiﬁ ed, in terms of which 
again the appellant was required to obtain permission for development of 
a colony. While the appellant was in the process, the respondent vide letter 
dated 27.01.1975 requested the appellant to refund the earnest money paid 
by him along with interest @12% per annum. The request was followed by 
another letter dated 01.01.1976 with similar prayer.
7 
Case No, 342 of 1986
8 
Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development 
Act, 1963
9 
Haryana Restriction of Development and Regulation of Colonies Act, 1971
M/S. GREATER ASHOKA AND LAND DEV. COMPANY v. KANTI 
PRASAD JAIN (D) THROUGH LRS. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
936 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
5. Vide letter dated 13.12.1982, the appellant oﬀ ered a new plot 
to the respondent as the booking for the earlier plot was frustrated with 
the passage of time due to various developments, which took place after 
the booking was made. It was oﬀ ered to the respondent @ ₹135/- per 
square yard. In addition, external development charges payable to the 
State Government, were to be paid. The consent was to be given by 
the respondent within ten days. The aforesaid letter was replied to by 
the respondent vide letter dated 27.12.1982 not giving the consent for 
purchase of plot on revised terms. Rather, he asked for certain details 
which could not be furnished as on date, namely, the amount to be paid 
to the State Government for external development. This was followed by 
a legal notice dated 04.01.1983 calling upon the appellant to get the sale 
deed registered at the same rate at which the plot was initially allotted,@ 
₹25/- per square yard. Thereafter, the respondent remained silent. A Civil 
Suit was ﬁ led after more than three years since the issuance of legal notice 
and more than two decades after the plot was booked. The alternative 
prayer made in the suit was for grant of refund of earnest money along 
with interest @ 18% per annum. Once an alternative relief has been 
claimed in the suit ﬁ led for speciﬁ c performance, the plaintiﬀ  is entitled 
to only that relief. The appellant does not have any objection to the
grant 
of that relief as it is ready and willing to refund the amount of earnest 
money deposited by the respondent along with interest, as claimed. The 
appellant is even ready to pay interest to the respondent even at higher 
rate of 36% per annum also. 
6. He further submitted that at present the agreement of contract 
is frustrated on account of developments which have taken place in the 
last sixty years as no plot is available. Even in his cross-examination, the 
respondent stated that he was not ready and willing to take the plot @ 
₹135/- per square yard. It was only a matter of gesture that the appellant 
had oﬀ ered a plot to the respondent after taking licences/permissions 
under the 1963 Act and 1971 Act, which intervened after the plot was 
booked by the respondent. Once the respondent had failed to accept the 
oﬀ er within the time permitted, the earnest money deposited by him 
stood forfeited. In support of the argument, reliance was placed upon 
the judgment of this Court in Kanshi Ram v. Om Prakash Jawal and
937
others10. He further referred to an order dated 21.08.2003 passed by the 
High Court in M/s Ashoka Enclave Plot-holders Association v. M/s 
Greater Ashoka Land & Development Co.11, wherein the appeal ﬁ led 
by the Association of Plot-holders of the same colony seeking same relief 
was dismissed, while upholding the judgment of the Trial Court. The 
aforesaid litigation being in representative capacity, even the respondent 
would be bound by the result thereof.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that 
the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the contract for 
allotment of plot to the respondent had been frustrated with the passage of 
time is fallacious. The appellant itself had oﬀ ered the plot to the respondent 
on 13.12.1982. It is wrong to allege that the respondent refused to accept the 
oﬀ er. In fact, the respondent had paid a sum of ₹4,945/- as earnest money 
at the time of booking of the plot and subsequently. All that the respondent 
had asked for from the appellant was as to how that money already paid and 
the interest thereon will be dealt with as the delay in allotment of plot was 
attributable to it. The details of the amount to be paid to the State Government 
was also asked for. The respondent was entitled to get that details before 
accepting the oﬀ er in order to avoid any dispute in future. There was no 
refusal to accept the oﬀ er. The amount asked for by the appellant included 
the amount already
paid to the State Government, the details thereof was 
sought. The information was asked for by the respondent as in the letter 
of oﬀ er dated 13.12.1982, the appellant had asked for payment of certain 
amounts which as compared to the rate at which the plot was initially 
allotted was exorbitant. He further submitted that there is no error in the 
order passed by the High Court as the lower Appellate Court had reversed 
the well-reasoned judgment and decree of the Trial Court on erroneous 
appreciation of evidence produced on record. The respondent has been 
waiting for the plot after depositing the amount way back in 1960s for the 
last six decades. The fault lies with the appellant. Interim stay was granted 
by the High Court, hence, to state that the plot is not available now will be 
contemptuous.
10 (1996) 4 SCC 593.
11 Regular Second Appeal No. 293 of 2003
M/S. GREATER ASHOKA AND LAND DEV. COMPANY v. KANTI 
PRASAD JAIN (D) THROUGH LRS. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
938 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
9. The facts of the case to the extent that the respondent had applied 
for allotment of plot measuring 233 square yards at the rate of ₹25/- per 
square yard, which was allotted to him on 19.11.1963, are not in dispute. 
Total sale consideration was ₹5825/-. As noticed by the High Court in the 
impugned order, the respondent had paid total sum of ₹4,945/-. The colony 
was not developed, as the stand taken by the appellant is that two new 
enactments by the State, namely, 1963 Act and 1971 Act intervened, in terms 
of which number of permissions were required to be taken. The appellant, 
after taking those permissions, oﬀ ered to the respondent an alternative plot 
vide letter dated 13.12.1982 @ ₹135/- per square yard which, as per the 
letter, included the cost of the land and internal development charges. The 
amount already paid or payable to the Haryana Government on account 
of external development will be additionally payable by the allottee. The 
oﬀ er was to be accepted within ten days. Twenty ﬁ ve percent of the total 
amount was payable immediately. Twenty percent of the total amount was 
to be deposited within 30 days. The balance 55% was to be deposited in 
phased manner corresponding with the development of the colony. From 
paragraph 6 of the aforesaid letter, it is evident that beyond 100% of the 
cost of the plot, which was sought to be oﬀ ered @
₹135/-per square yard, 
₹20/- per square yard was asked for as part payment to be deposited with 
the State Government for development work. The fact remains that the size 
of the plot was not mentioned in the letter.
9.1 The aforesaid letter was served upon the respondent on 18.12.1982. 
Within ten days thereof, the respondent requested the appellant to supply 
the lay out plan so as to enable him to know the number and size of the plot 
for which the payment was to be made as there was completely a new lay 
out plan. He also asked for the manner in which the amount already paid 
by him along with interest is to be adjusted as the letter of oﬀ er did not 
mention anything about the same. Request was also made to inform about 
the amount to be paid to the State Government towards external development 
charges as in the letter of oﬀ er dated 13.12.1982, ₹20/- per square yard as 
part payment towards development charges was required to be deposited. 
It is not a matter of dispute that the aforesaid letter of the respondent was 
not replied to by the appellant. Immediately thereafter, the respondent got
939
a legal notice issued to the appellant mentioning all the details and calling 
upon the appellant to allot the plot measuring 233 square yards @ ₹25/- per 
square yard, failing which suit for speciﬁ c performance may be ﬁ led. The 
appellant did not respond even to the aforesaid legal notice. What can be 
inferred therefrom is that the appellant was not ready and willing to furnish 
the basic information sought by the respondent. The civil suit for speciﬁ c 
performance was ﬁ led on 02.01.1986 within the period of limitation. It was 
decreed by the Trial Court. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court was 
reversed by the lower Appellate Court. However, the High Court set aside 
the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court and restored that of 
the Trial Court, directing for registration of the sale deed.
10. We ﬁ nd that allotment of plot was made way back on 19.11.1963. 
Six decades have passed thereafter. No doubt, there were certain 
developments in the meantime. With the enactment of 1963 Act and 1971 
Act, certain permissions were required to be taken by the appellant for 
development of the land as a colony. Those were taken. Even the plot 
was oﬀ ered to the respondent. However, when the cost of the plot was 
demanded at a higher rate, even on the asking of the respondent, details 
were not furnished. The amount demanded was @ ₹135/- per square 
yard as against ₹25/- per square yard at which initially the allotment was 
made. The stand taken by the
appellant is that at present all the plots have 
been sold out. We are not going into that aspect as the appellant agreed 
to pay damages to the respondent as, according to it, alternative relief for 
damages in the form of refund of earnest money along with interest has 
been claimed. Though the claim, as per the appellant, is for refund of the 
money along with interest @ 18% per annum, however, the appellant is 
even ready to pay interest at a higher rate. 
11. A perusal of the prayer made in the suit shows that in the alternative, 
only refund of earnest money along with interest has not been claimed, rather 
the respondent/plaintiﬀ  had claimed adequate damages, which may include 
refund of the earnest money along with interest. Merely refunding the earnest 
money paid, after sixty years will be unreasonable as the respondent, after 
booking the plot, has been waiting all along as even in the litigation since 
1986. The price of the land in the area has increased manifold for the last 
sixty years.
M/S. GREATER ASHOKA AND LAND DEV. COMPANY v. KANTI 
PRASAD JAIN (D) THROUGH LRS. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
940 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
12. The order passed by the High Court in M/s Ashoka Enclave 
Plot-holders Association’s case (supra) does not come to the rescue of the 
appellant for the reason that in the aforesaid case, the civil suit was ﬁ led by 
the appellants therein on 14.06.1991, nine years after the oﬀ er was made 
to them for allotment of alternative plot. The same was held to be beyond 
limitation. The argument of the appellant that the respondent had requested 
for refund of the earnest money paid by him vide letters dated 27.01.1975 
and 1.01.1976 also deserves to be rejected as it was not responded to by 
the appellant. 
13. Considering the aforesaid totality of the facts, in our view, the 
interest of justice will meet in case the impugned judgment and decree 
of the High Court is modiﬁ ed to the extent that instead of getting the sale 
deed of the plot registered @ ₹25/- per square yard, in the alternative, the 
appellant pays a total amount of ₹50,00,000/- to the respondent as full and 
ﬁ nal settlement of claim in the suit. The amount is to be paid within a period 
of three months.
14. The present appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Headnotes prepared by: 
Appeals disposed of.
Nidhi Jain