HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR versus JAGDEEP SINGH
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 1156, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Facts
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1156
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 1156
1156
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.
v.
JAGDEEP SINGH
Civil Appeal No. 4709 of 2011
MAY 08, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
Cost: Imposition of, for filing frivolous litigation – On facts,
appellant demanding additional price for plot allotted to the
respondent – Said land was transferred by the Animal Husbandry
Department to the appellants and the rate at which the land was
transferred was revised – Suit filed by the respondent challenging
the demand of additional price – Courts below set aside the demand
of the additional price of the plot allotted to the respondent in
accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the allotment
letter – On appeal, held: There is no illegality in the order passed
by the courts below in setting aside the demand of the additional
price of the plot allotted to the respondent – Appellant was in
knowledge of the matter on similar issue decided on merits by this
Court way back in 2005 – Said suit was contested and decreed in
2008, thereafter, appeal was preferred by the appellant before the
first appellate court, then High Court and thereafter, before this
Court – Case is a frivolous litigation filed by the appellants, where
the officers shirk to take responsibility – For filing frivolous appeal,
and for wasting the time of the Courts at different levels, cost of Rs
1,00,000/- imposed on the appellant which is to be deposited with
the
Supreme Court Mediation Centre – Respondent having been
dragged in unnecessary litigation upto this Court to be awarded
cost of Rs 50,000/- – Appellants would recover the said amount
from the guilty officers/officials who opined the case to be fit for
filing appeal at different levels despite being covered by judgment
of this Court.
Judicial deprecation : Conduct of the litigants in flooding
this Court with frivolous litigation – Is deprecated.
Sanjay Gera vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority
& Anr. (2005) 3 SCC 207 – relied on.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1157
Sabaji Naik & Ors. vs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar &
Ors. (2017) 5 SCC 496 : [2017] 2 SCR 95; ICOMM
Tele Ltd. Vs. Punjab State Water Supply and Sewerage
Board and Ors. (2019) 4 SCC 401 : [2019] 2 SCR 984
– referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2017] 2 SCR 95
referred to
Para 14
[2019] 2 SCR 984
referred to
Para 15
(2005) 3 SCC 207
relied on
Para 20
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4709
of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.2009 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 1449 of 2009.
Samar Vijay Singh, Keshav Mittal, Ms. Amrita Verma, Ms. Sabarni
Som, Advs. for the Appellants.
S. N. Jha, K. N. Jha, S. K. Mishra, Mrs. Revathy Raghavan,
Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
1. The Order dated 28.10.2009 passed by the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in RSA No. 1449 of 2009 has been challenged in the present
appeal. By the aforesaid order, the appeal filed by the Appellants was
dismissed and concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Trial Court
as well as by the First Appellate Court were upheld.
2. The dispute pertains to demand of additional price for the
allotment of plot to the Respondent.
3. The Respondent was allotted plot no.1084 in Sector-14, (Part),
Hisar vide allotment letter dated 21.08.1986 @ 224.90 per sq. yard.
4. Notice was issued to the Respondent by the Appellants on
15.01.1993 raising demand of additional price as well as to show cause
as to why the plot
should not be resumed on account of non-construction
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. v.
JAGDEEP SINGH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1158
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
within a period of two years of allotment. The aforesaid notice was
followed by subsequent notices and the last being dated 28.01.2002.
5. A civil suit was filed by the Respondent on 01.10.2003
challenging the demand raised by the present Appellants. The same was
decreed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appellant filed appeal which
was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. The Appellants did not
succeed even before the High Court.
6. The learned Trial Court accepted the plea raised by the
respondent on the ground that in terms of the conditions contained in the
letter of allotment, the demand of additional price could be raised only in
case of enhancement in cost of land by the competent authority under
Land Acquisition Act. As in the case in hand, there is no enhancement in
cost of land awarded by any Court or authority, therefore, no additional
demand could be raised.
7. The argument raised by learned counsel for the Appellants is
that the land in question was transferred by the Animal Husbandry
Department, Haryana to the Appellants @ 
1,21,000/- per acre.
However, later on the rate was revised to 3,00,000/- per acre. On
failure, the Appellants were not to be given possession of the land. The
allotments had been made by the Appellants on 21.08.1986 @ 224.90.
Initially when the plot was allotted to the Respondent, calculation of
price was made taking the cost of the land at 1,21,000/- per acre.
However, later
on the cost was increased to 3,00,000/- per acre, an
additional price was demanded. The price of the plot was worked out at
301.70 sq. yard and the additional demand was raised from the
Respondent @ 76.80 per sq.yd. It was also stated in the notice that
though the cost of development charges has been increased in the last 5
to 6 years, however still the Appellants will bear the same. As the cost
of the land to the Appellants increased, the same had to be borne by the
allottees. The Appellants being non-profitable Organisation.
8. It was further stated in the notice that in case the Respondent
is not ready to accept the allotment of plot on payment of an additional
price, he may get his deposit back alongwith interest @ 10% p.a.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent pleaded
that in the case in hand, one of the condition in the letter of allotment
was that the price of the plot was tentative; the additional price can be
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1159
demanded only on account of increase in cost of land awarded by the
competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act. It is admitted case
of the Appellant that the land on which the plot in question was carved
out was not acquired rather it was transferred by the Animal Husbandry
Department of the State to the Appellants. The price thereof was
determined at the time of transfer, however, in case later on different
price is determined, the allottees cannot be made to bear the increased
cost.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
and relevant documents.
11. The fact that a plot was allotted to the Respondent vide
allotment letter dated 21.08.1986 at the cost of 224.90 per sq. yard,
is not in dispute. It is also the admitted case of the appellant that the
land on which the plot was carved out was initially owned by the Animal
Husbandry Department of the State which was transferred to the
appellant. The initial price was fixed as 1,12,000/- per acre. The cost
of plot was calculated including the cost of development and allotments
were made. It transpires from the record that later on, the rate at
which 275.5 acres of land of Animal Husbandry Department was
transferred to the Appellants was revised to 3,00,000/- per acre.
Whether burden of additional cost of the land could be put on the plot
holders, was the issue before the Courts below. The relevant clause as
contained in the letter of allotment regarding demand of additional
price
is extracted below:
“Clause 9 : The above price is tentative to the extend that any
enhancement in the cost of land awarded by the competent
authority under the Land Acquisition Act shall also be payable
proportionately as determined by the authority the additional
price determined shall paid within 30 days of its demand.”
12. The aforesaid clause was interpreted by all the courts below
to mean that the additional price can be demanded in case there is
enhancement in cost of the land awarded by the competent authority
under the Land Acquisition Act. It is the admitted case of the Appellants
that the land for allotment of the plot was never acquired. Hence, there
could not be any enhancement in the cost of the land by any authority or
court under the Land Acquisition Act.
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. v.
JAGDEEP SINGH [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1160
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
13. From these undisputed facts on record and the terms and
conditions contained in the allotment letter, there is no illegality
committed by the learned court below in setting aside the demand of
the additional price of the plot allotted to the Respondent. There is no
merit in the present appeal. The same deserves to be dismissed.
Ordered accordingly.
14. For filing the present frivolous appeal, in our opinion, the
Appellants deserve to be burdened with heavy cost. This Court had
deprecated the conduct of the litigants in flooding this Court with frivolous
litigations, which are choking the dockets as a result of which the matters,
which require consideration are delayed. Observations made in Dynandeo
Sabaji Naik & Ors. vs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar & Ors.1 are
extracted below:
“13. This Court must view with disfavour any attempt by a
litigant to abuse the process. The sanctity of the judicial
process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt
with firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or
with the procedures of the Court should be left in no doubt
about the consequences to follow. Others should not venture
along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation
of judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even
necessary, in order to ensure that in litigation, as in the law
which is practised in our country, there is no premium on the
truth.
14. Courts across the legal
system-this Court not being an
exception - are choked with litigation. Frivolous and
groundless filings constitute a serious menace to the
administration of justice. They consume time and clog the
infrastructure. Productive resources which should be
deployed in the handling of genuine causes are dissipated in
attending to cases filed only to benefit from delay, by
prolonging dead issues and pursuing worthless causes. No
litigant can have a vested interest in delay. Unfortunately, as
the present case exemplifies, the process of dispensing justice
is misused by the unscrupulous to the detriment of the
legitimate. The present case is an illustration of how a simple
1 (2017) 5 SCC 496
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1161
issue has occupied the time of the courts and of how successive
applications have been filed to prolong the inevitable. The
person in whose favour the balance of justice lies has in the
process been left in the lurch by repeated attempts to revive a
stale issue. This tendency can be curbed only if courts across
the system adopt an institutional approach which penalizes
such behaviour. Liberal access to justice does not mean access
to chaos and Indiscipline. A strong message must be conveyed
that courts of justice will not be allowed to be disrupted by
litigative strategies designed to profit from the delays of the
law. Unless remedial action is taken by all courts here and
now our society will breed a legal culture based on evasion
instead of abidance. It is the duty of every court to firmly
deal with such situations. The imposition of exemplary costs
is a necessary instrument which has to be deployed to weed
out, as well as to prevent the filing of frivolous cases. It is
only then that the courts can set apart time to resolve genuine
causes and answer the concerns of those who are in need of
justice. Imposition of real time costs is also necessary to ensure
that access to courts is available to citizens with genuine
grievances. Otherwise, the doors would be shut to legitimate
causes simply by the weight of undeserving cases which flood
the system. Such a situation cannot be allowed to come to
pass. Hence it is not merely a matter of discretion but a
duty
and obligation cast upon all courts to ensure that the legal
system is not exploited by those who use the forms of the law
to defeat or delay justice. We commend all courts to deal with
frivolous filings in the same manner.”
(emphasis supplied)
15. The aforesaid judgment was cited with approval in a later
judgment of this Court in ICOMM Tele Ltd. Vs. Punjab State Water
Supply and Sewerage Board and Ors.2
16. Now coming to the facts of the present case which clearly
establish the case in hand to be a frivolous litigation, filed by the Appellants,
where the officers shirk to take responsibility.
2 (2019) 4 SCC 401
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. v.
JAGDEEP SINGH [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1162
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
17. On merits also a similar issue came up for consideration before
this Court in Sanjay Gera vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority
& Anr.3 In the aforesaid case, the plot was allotted in same Sector-14
(Part), Hissar. Additional price was demanded for the same as is projected
in the case in hand.
18. Though the High Court had not granted relief to the allotee,
therein however this Court accepted the plea and quashed the demand
of additional price from the allottee, interpreting the same condition in
the letter of allotment as is in the case in hand. Paragraphs 2, 5 and 6
thereof are reproduced hereunder:
“2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal
are that the plaintiff-appellant herein was allotted Plot No.940
vide allotment letter bearing No.21548 dated August 20, 1986
and he deposited an amount of Rs.18,600 in compliance of
the conditions of the allotment and sent the required
documents. The defendant-respondents demanded the annual
instalment on account of the said plot and the plaintiff-
appellant deposited the same vide receipt dated August 21,
1987. After deposit of the total amount demanded by the
defendant-respondents by sending letter No.1300 dated
January 15, 1993 to the plaintiff-appellant demanding a sum
of Rs.38,400/- to be paid within a period of thirty days from
the date of issue of the letter in respect of the above said plot.
The plaintiff-appellant challenged this letter
dated January
15, 1993 as illegal, void and against the principles of natural
justice and on various other counts. The grievance of the
plaintiff-appellant was that the demand raised by the
defendant-respondents is not valid as the said demand is not
on account of any award given by the competent Authority
under the Land Acquisition Act and the defendant-respondents
cannot revoke the allotment made in his favour. The plaintiff-
appellant made a request to the defendant-respondents to
revoke the letter dated January 15, 1993 but the defendant-
respondents refused to do so. Therefore, the plaintiff-appellant
was completed to file the present suit with prayer for a
declaration to the effect that the letter dated January 15, 1993
3 (2005) 3 SCC 207
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1163
in respect of Plot No. 940, Sector 14, Part, Hisar issued by
defendant No.2 is illegal, void and liable to be set aside and
he also prayed for consequential relief for permanent
injunction restraining the defendants from revoking,
reviewing or cancelling the allotment letter issued by the
defendants vide Memo No. 21548 dated August 20, 1986 and
from taking any action on the basis of the aforesaid letter.
The plaintiff-appellant also sought for temporary injunction
directing the defendant-respondents to deliver the possession
of the plot.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the records. There is no gainsaying that as per condition No.9
of the allotment order the price in question was only tentative.
But the condition is qualified that in case any award is given
by the Land Acquisition Officer the price can be enhanced.
Condition No.9 reads as under:
“The above price is tentative to the extent that any
enhancement in the cost of land awarded by the competent
authority under the Land Acquisition Act shall be payable
proportionately as determined by the authority. The
additional price determined shall be paid within thirty days
of its demand.”
As per this condition enhancement could be made on the cost
of the land as per the award by the competent authority under
the Land Acquisition Act. But no such award was given by
the Land Acquisition authority. In a suit a duty is cast on the
defendants to lead evidence to show that increase on
the cost
of the land is necessitated because of enhancement of paying
higher rate of compensation to the Animal Husbandry
Department. But no such evidence was led in the suit. D.W.1
nowhere stated that this enhancement was warranted because
Animal Husbandry Department had to be paid compensation
at higher rate for acquisition of this land. It may be that
because of decision given by the Punjab and Haryana High
Court, it enabled the defendants to claim higher price for
allotted plot. In a civil suit all facts have to be pleaded and
proved. But in the present case, there is no evidence to
substantiate the allegation. It was incumbent on the part of
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. v.
JAGDEEP SINGH [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1164
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
the Haryana Urban Development Authority to substantiate
the same by leading proper evidence that the enhancement
was effected on account of increase in the price of acquisition
of land. But the statement of DW-1, the only evidence which
has been led by the defendant/respondent is significantly silent
on this issue. In civil matters, the rights of the parties cannot
be determined just on the basis of any other judgment on
questions of fact. It is the duty of the defendants to specifically
plead and prove their case by leading proper evidence in the
matter. As per the evidence led by the defendant/respondent
i.e. the documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence,
the allegations made by the defendants are not substantiated.
So far as condition no.9 of the allotment letter is concerned,
there is no dispute that the defendants can demand additional
price as the price at the time of allotment was tentative. But in
order to justify the enhancement of the price as per condition
No. 9 of the allotment letter, the defendants had to lead proper
evidence to substantiate the allegation. There is no such
evidence produced by the defendants. Therefore, the trial
court has rightly approached in the matter and this is a case
of total misreading of the evidence by the learned Additional
‘District Judge as well as by learned Single Judge of the High
Court.
6. In the result of our above discussion, we are of the opinion
that the
order passed by the trial court is justified and the
view taken by the Additional District Judge as well as learned
Single Judge of the High Court in the facts and circumstances
of this case does not appear to be justified. Hence, we allow
this appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned
Single Judge of the High Court as well as the order passed
by the Additional District Judge, Hisar and confirm the order
dated March 27, 1996 passed by the trial court. No order as
to costs.”
19. The issue sought to be raised before this Court was referring
to the letter dated 01/12/1992 which according to the Appellants shows
the amount required to be paid by the Appellants to the Animal Husbandry
Department for the land transferred to Sector-14, (Part), Hisar. The
idea to show the letter was that in fact the amount required to be paid
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1165
for transfer of land was 3,00,000 instead of 1,21,000/- per acre. The
fact remains that the aforesaid document has been referred to and
considered by this Court in Sanjay Gera’s case (supra) and no merit
was found in the arguments raised.
20. In the case in hand, the civil suit was filed on 1.10.2003 by the
Respondent challenging the demand of additional price. Judgment of
this Court in Sanjay Gera’s case was delivered on 22.02.2005. Despite
this fact being in knowledge of the Appellants, the suit was contested
and the same was decreed on 19.08.2008. The matter did not end here,
appeal was preferred by the appellant before the First Appellate Court
and on failure even before the High Court and thereafter before this
Court. For the aforesaid reasons and wasting the time of the Courts at
different levels, we deem it appropriate to burden the Appellants with
cost of 1,00,000/- to be deposited with the Supreme Court Mediation
Centre.
21. In addition, the Respondent having been dragged in unnecessary
litigation upto this Court deserves to be awarded cost of 50,000/-.
22. The aforesaid amount shall be recovered by the Appellants
from the guilty officers/officials who opined the case to be fit for filing
appeal at different levels despite being covered by judgment of this
Court.
23. The additional amount sought to be recovered from the
Respondent was 26,880/-to which there was no justification even at
the stage of issuance of notice. The suit was decreed on
19.08.2008.
The amount spent on litigation would be much more. It is because of
impersonal and irresponsible attitude of the officers, who want to put
everything to Court and shirk to take decisions. However, still the
Appellants had not only filed appeals, resulting in addition to the pendency
of cases and also must have spent huge amount on litigation in the form
of fee of the counsels and allied expenses. Besides that, number of
officer(s)/official(s) must have visited the counsel engaged either at
Chandigarh, when the matter was taken up in the High Court and
thereafter to this Court, when the order was challenged before this Court.
Even that amount also needs to be calculated and recovered from the
guilty officers who, despite there being judgment of this Court, dealing
with the same issue opined the case to be fit for filing appeals.
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. v.
JAGDEEP SINGH [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1166
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
24. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed. The amount
of cost be deposited in Supreme Court Mediation Centre and paid to the
respondent within two months from today and regarding cost of litigation,
needful shall be done within six months. Affidavit of compliance to be
filed in this Court.
Nidhi Jain
Appeal dismissed.
(Assisted by : Mayank Batra, LCRA)