No writ jurisdiction in case of specific performance of contract no fresh cause of action on representation and its rejection held by the Supreme Court.

No writ jurisdiction in case of specific performance of contract no fresh cause of action on representation and its rejection.

Relevant provisions:

U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976

Provisions relating to Writ Jurisdiction of High Courts and the Supreme Court.

Article on this website by Ld. author Mr. M GOVINDARAJAN

“ MERE REPRESENTATION DOES NOT EXTEND LIMITATION March 9, 2022 “

In that article ld. Author has discussed in detail some related aspects.  

Understanding the nature  of the case in summary:

This is a case pertaining of sale of agricultural land by farmers to State Government or its agencies/ Board for the purpose of industrial development. In terms of provisions of U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976  and resolutions  passed by NOIDA, the seller , farmer on sale of  farms land was  to be allotted another plot which shall be equal to the size of land sold by farmer.

This allotment was not automatic, but was to be on payment and following procedure to claim plot equal to 10% of size of plot sold. Therefore, it is implied that the original vendor of agricultural land was to make application and pay equal to 10% of consideration received by him on sale of plot(s)  of  land to NOIDA. This is therefore for a public cause.

There was  delay on part of farmer in properly claiming his plot of land by paying 10% of price received by him for land sold. The specific performance was also time barred when a WP was made.

 Petitioner made a WP and High Court directed NOIDA to consider submissions and representations. NOIDA rejected claim of petitioner and did not accept representation.

Thereafter also route of  WP was pursued and it was contended that period of limitation shall run from  date when rejection of representations was made and that a new cause of action arose..

Per author: It appears that , route of WP was suggested and followed by petitioner for the reason that NOIDA is a public authority, doing development work as per law and schemes framed by governments. Therefore, it appears that the Terms and Conditions in sale agreement which flowed from U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976  and  schemes thereunder  and NOIDA being a public authority were considered as a fit case for WP. But as held by the Supreme Court, this is wrong.

The High Court rejected the WP, against which appeal was filed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the same. From the judgment we can notice the following rules:

1. mere representation does not extend the period of limitation.
2. the aggrieved person has to approach the Court expeditiously and within reasonable time.
3.  If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold.
4. High Court 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.

(Per author: It appears that NOIDA being a public authority, the High Court directed to consider representation of Writ petitioner.) Otherwise for specific  performance of a contract one has to follow civil courts  jurisdiction and writ jurisdiction of High Court and even the Supreme Court may nto be available to litigants.

5. once it is found that the original writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches. 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.
6. No writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be maintainable and/or entertain able for specific performance of the contract..
7. WP for specific performance that too after a period of 10 years by which time even the suit for specific performance would have been barred by limitation. Cannot be admitted.

Confusion galore and can cause more litigation:

The Supreme Court has  inter alis held as follows:

           No writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be maintainable and/or entertain able for specific performance of the contract and that too after a period of 10 years by which time even the suit for specific performance would have been barred by limitation.

For specific performance of contract WP is not maintainable, this is general rule which appears to be reiterated by the Supreme Court in this judgment. However, this is with a rider  or is with addition of the following words  :

              “ That too after a period of 10 years by which time even the suit for specific performance would have been barred by limitation.

Author feels that this observation of honorable Supreme Court can give rise to another view and further litigation that if WP was filed within limitation period then WP could be maintained.