2014 (3) TMI 1134 - SC - Indian Laws

Court rules respondent cannot challenge extension fee after accepting benefits. Doctrine of 'approbate and reprobate' applied.

State of Punjab and Others Versus Dhanjit Singh Sandhu

State of Punjab and Others Versus Dhanjit Singh Sandhu - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of the extension fee charged in excess of the rates mentioned in Rule 13 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995.2. Applicability of the judgment in Tehal Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. to the present case.3. Doctrine of 'approbate and reprobate' and its relevance to the case.4. Validity of the retrospective application of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development (General) Second Amendment Rules, 2001.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Extension Fee Charged:The respondent was allotted a plot and was required to complete construction within three years. The respondent claimed that there was no condition for charging an extension fee for failure to complete construction within this period. However, the allotment was subject to the provisions of the Punjab Estates (Development and Regulation Act), 1964, and the Rules and Policies framed thereunder. The Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (PUDA Act) repealed the 1964 Act and introduced new rules, including Rule 13, which specified the time for construction and provided for an extension fee. The Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA) issued a circular revising the extension fee rates, which the respondent paid under protest, alleging an excess charge of Rs. 1.20 lacs.2. Applicability of the Judgment in Tehal Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors.:The High Court relied on the judgment in Tehal Singh's case, which declared that the extension fee should be calculated as per Rule 13 of the 1995 Rules. The High Court quashed the notices demanding the extension fee and directed a recalculation as per Rule 13. However, the Supreme Court noted that the facts in the present case differed from Tehal Singh's case. In Tehal Singh, the court ruled that the 1995 Rules superseded earlier rates, and the extension fee should be as per the 1995 Rules. The Supreme Court pointed out that the respondent had accepted the terms and conditions of the allotment and paid the extension fee to avoid resumption of the plot. Therefore, the ratio in Tehal Singh's case did not apply.3. Doctrine of 'Approbate and Reprobate':The Supreme Court emphasized the doctrine of 'approbate and reprobate,' which is a species of estoppel. It implies that once a party has accepted and benefited from a condition, they cannot later challenge it. The respondent, having accepted the terms of the allotment and paid the extension fee to avoid resumption, could not subsequently demand a refund based on amended rules. The court cited several precedents, including C.I.T. vs. Mr. P. Firm Maur and R.N. Gosain vs. Yashpal Dhir, reinforcing that a party cannot accept benefits and then challenge the validity of the underlying conditions.4. Validity of the Retrospective Application of the 2001 Rules:The appellant framed the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development (General) Second Amendment Rules, 2001, with retrospective effect to validate the enhanced extension fee. The Supreme Court did not delve deeply into the validity of the retrospective application but focused on the respondent's acceptance of the original terms and conditions. The court held that the respondent could not challenge the extension fee after having derived benefits from the extension.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, which had allowed the writ petition based on the Tehal Singh judgment. The Supreme Court concluded that the respondent could not approbate and reprobate by first accepting the terms and conditions of the allotment and later seeking to deny liability. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, with no order as to costs.