TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (6) TMI 687
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Punjab. The Administration, vide letter dated 25-2-1987, issued the allotment letter in favour of the appellant in respect of plot No. 702, measuring 400 sq. yards in Sector 70 Urban Estate SAS Nagar, making it clear that as the proper calculation could not be made and tentative price had not been determined, the allottee has to deposit provisional price of Rs. 93000/- in four installments upto 15-10-1989. Subsequently, vide letter dated 25-3-1992, additional demand of Rs. 2,19,000/- was made, however, instead of depositing the said amount, appellant challenged the said Demand Notice by filing Writ Petition No. 4763 of 1992 before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana contending that the additional demand was arbitrary and unreasonable. A large number of similar cases were also pending before the High Court and some had earlier been disposed of. However, the Writ Petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the High Court vide impugned Judgment and Order dated 21-12-1999 upholding the demand dated 25-3-1992. Hence this appeal. 4. Sh. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the High Court committed an error in dismissing th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he judgment of the High Court against which the Special Leave Petition has been filed before this Court stands affirmed or the judgment and order impugned merges with such order of this Court on dismissal of the petition. It simply means that this Court did not consider the case worth examining for the reason, which may be other than merit of the case. Nor such an order of this Court operates as res judicata. An order rejecting the Special Leave Petition at the threshold without detailed reasons therefore does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent. [Vide The Workmen of Cochin Port Trust v. The Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port Trust & Anr. - AIR 1978 SC 1283; Ahmedabad Manufacturing & Calico Printing Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen & Anr. - AIR 1981 SC 960; Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors. - AIR 1986 SC 1780; Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India & Ors. - AIR 1990 SC 334; Yogendra Narayan Chowdhury & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. - AIR 1996 SC 751; Union of India & Anr. v. Sher Singh & Ors. - AIR 1997 SC 1796; V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax - AIR 2000 SC 1623; Saurashtra Oil Mills Assn., G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 of the Constitution is divisible into two stages. The first stage is upto the disposal of prayer for special leave to file an appeal. The second stage commences if and when the leave to appeal is granted and the special leave petition is converted into an appeal. (iii) Doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of universal or unlimited application. It will depend on the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the content or subject-matter of challenge laid or capable of being laid shall be determinative of the applicability of merger. The superior jurisdiction should be capable of reversing, modifying or affirming the order put in issue before it. Under Article 136 of the Constitution the Supreme Court may reverse, modify or affirm the judgment-decree or order appealed against while exercising its appellate jurisdiction and not while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction disposing of petition for special leave to appeal. The doctrine of merger can therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us loss to the State exchequer. We, therefore, direct that the reasons which impelled the State to seek withdrawal of these matters be placed before us in the form of an affidavit by the Chief Secretary, Punjab or the Secretary of the Department concerned justifying the step for seeking withdrawal."  (Emphasis added) 13. The respondent cannot claim parity with D.S. Laungia (supra) in view of the settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisages for negative equality. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud. Article 14 of the Constitution has a positive concept. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a Judicial Forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quisition Act, 1894, and the amount of cost incurred by the State Government in respect of such reference. 2(e)- 'tentative price' means such sum of money as may be determined by the State Government from time to time, in respect of the sale of a site by allotment, having regard among other matters, to the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the land acquired by the State Government of which the site sold forms a part. 4. Sale Price :- In the case of sale of a site by allotment the sale price shall be : (a) where such site forms part of the land acquired by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; and (i) no reference under Section 18 thereof is made against the award of the Collector of such reference having been made has failed, the tentative price. (ii) On a reference made under Section 18 thereof the compensation awarded by the Collector is enhanced by the Court. The aggregate of the tentative price and the additional price; (b) in any other case, such final price as may be determined by the State Government from time to time. (2) In case of sale of site by auction the sale p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us with the provisional price, and that a person, to whom the plot has been allotted on provisional price, cannot be asked to pay the tentative price determined by the government. There is a difference between the "provisional price" and the "tentative price" and it may take a long time for the State to determine the tentative price. 20. In the instant case, the calculations had been furnished by the respondents as on what basis tentative price had been determined. A. Cost of land 1. Cost of land per acre of Sector 70 SAS Nagar Rs. 90,000/- 2. Solatium charges @30% Rs. 27,000/- 3. Interest charges from the date of Notification till the date of Award @12% from 1980 to 1984 for 4 Years Rs. 43,000/- 4. Interest charges 15% from 1984 to 1990 for 6 years on the cost of land Rs. 1,44,180/- Rs. 3,04,380/- B. Cost of Internal and External Development 1. Water Supply @ Rs. 1.35 lacs. Rs. 1,35,000/- 2. Sewerage @ Rs. 59,000/- Rs. 59,000/- 3. Sterm Water @ Rs. 1,32,000/- Rs. 1,32,000/- 4. Roads @ Rs. 55,000/- per acre Rs. 55,000/- 5. Bridges & Others @Rs. 11,000/- per acre Rs. 11,000/- 6. Horticulture @ Rs. 36,000/- per acre Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh (supra) wherein after taking note of various statutory provisions of Act 1964 and Rules 1965, particularly, Rule 2(aa) and sale price as determined in Rule 4, this Court came to .the following conclusion : "7. A conjoint reading of the above Rules would clearly indicate that the allottee is liable to pay a sale price including the additional price and the cost incurred and also the cost of improvement of the sites. It is to be remembered that the respondent HUDA is only a statutory body for catering to the housing requirement of the persons eligible to claim for allotment. They acquire the land, develop it and construct buildings and allot the buildings or the sites, as the case may be. Under these circumstances, the entire expenditure incurred in connection with the acquisition of the land and development thereon is required to be borne by the allottees when the sites or the buildings sold after the development are offered on the date of the sale in accordance with the regulations and also conditions of sale. It is seen that in the notice dated 9-8-1990, the total area, net area, the payable amount for the gross acreage, the acreage left for the developmental purpose, bal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Board." 25. The instant case is squarely covered by the aforesaid Judgments of this Court and particularly, Preeta Singh (supra) and in view thereof, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 26. Before parting with the case, it may be pertinent to mention here that the allotment had been made to the appellant within 48 hours of submission of her application though in ordinary cases, it takes about a year. Appellant had further been favoured to pay the aforesaid provisional price of Rs. 93,000/- in four installments in two years, as is evident from the letter dated 8-4-1987. Making the allotment in such a hasty manner itself is arbitrary and unreasonable and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. This Court has consistently held that "when a thing is done in a post-haste manner, mala fide would be presumed." Anything done in undue haste can also be termed as "arbitrary and cannot be condoned in law." [vide Dr. S.P. Kapoor v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. - AIR 1981 SC 2181; Madhya Pradesh Hasta Shilpa Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Devendra Kumar Jain & Ors. (1995) 1 SCC 638; Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia & Ors. - AIR 2004 SC 1159; and Zenit Matapl....