Auction – Commercial property – Willful default by buyer – Appellant was allotted booth in open auction for Rs.7,55,000/- – Appellant paid Rs. 1,88,750/- (25% of the sale consideration) but failed to make payment of the remaining sale consideration – Third respondent (Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority) passed resumption order and resumed the booth on account of nonpayment of dues – Appeal filed by the appellant – Resumption order set aside – Pursuant to the appellate order, the appellant paid Rs.7,00,000/- – Revision filed by the third respondent – Resumption order restored – Writ petition filed by the appellant before High Court, which was dismissed – On appeal, held: Booth was allotted in 1996 – After making payment of 25% of the sale consideration, the appellant defaulted on the terms and conditions of the allotment – Third respondent issued notices to the appellant – Despite service of the notices, the appellant failed to make any payment in accordance with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter – Despite being afforded multiple opportunities to effect payment of the balance sale consideration, the appellant continued to default on the terms and conditions of the allotment – Appellant continued in possession of the booth for over 23 years after paying a meagre sum – Jurisdiction of Supreme Court u/Art.142 cannot be invoked to protect an unscrupulous buyer who took possession of a commercial property by paying only 25% of the sale consideration and willfully defaulted on the amount of money payable – No reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court – Resumption order confirmed – Constitution of India – Art.142.
The appellant was allotted booth in open auction for Rs.7, 55,000/-. He paid 25% of the sale consideration, but failed to make payment of the remaining sale consideration. The third respondent (Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority) passed resumption order, resuming the booth on account of non-payment of dues. The appellant filed appeal, wherein the resumption order was set aside. The third respondent filed revision. Resumption order was restored. The appellant filed writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD 1.1 The booth was allotted in 1996. The bid at the auction was accepted for Rs. 7,55,000, of which a total amount of Rs 1,88,750 (25% of the total sale consideration) was paid by the appellant. After making a payment of 25% of the sale consideration, the appellant defaulted on the terms and conditions of the allotment. The third respondent issued notices to the appellant on 3 December 1996, 20 February 1998, 20 October 1999, 3 June 1999 and 18 September 2000. Despite service of the notices, the appellant failed to make any payment in accordance with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. Despite being afforded multiple opportunities to effect payment of the balance sale consideration, the appellant continued to default on the terms and conditions of the allotment. [Paras 9, 10] [826-E-H; 827-A]
1.2 The appeal filed by the appellant against the resumption order dated 2 February, 2001 was dismissed in default on 23 April 2002. The application for restoration of appeal filed on 17 June 2002 was dismissed in default on 23 October 2007. Belatedly after a period of three years, another restoration application was filed on 22 December 2010. The above factors have justifiably weighed with the High Court. The appellant executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of a person by the name of ‘AP’ on
7 June 2001 nearly four months after the order for resumption was passed. The High Court has with justification, held that the GPA executed by the appellant appeared to be an assignment of litigation by the appellant. [Paras 11, 12] [827-B-D]
1.3 The jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 142 cannot be invoked to protect an unscrupulous buyer who took possession of a commercial property by paying only 25% of the sale consideration and willfully defaulted on the amount of money payable. The appellant has continued in possession of the booth for over 23 years. Despite being afforded multiple opportunities by the third respondent to effect payment, the appellant continued to default on payments due. Coupled with the above circumstances, there has been an assignment under a General Power of Attorney. During the hearing of this appeal, the appellant was offered an opportunity to regularize the allotment if a substantial amount of money was paid to the third respondent. Even at this stage, the appellant did not show any inclination to pay a fair amount to the third respondent. No reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The order of resumption shall stand confirmed. During the pendency of the proceedings in Supreme Court, the appellant deposited an amount of Rs 20 lakhs before the Registry pursuant to the interim order. The third respondent is at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant with accrued interest towards charges for unauthorized occupation. The third respondent shall compute occupation charges of the booth from 6 May 1996 and adjust the dues for occupation from the amount deposited by the appellant within two months of this order. Any surplus that remains shall be returned to the appellant with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. If the amount determined by the third respondent is in excess of the above amount deposited by the appellant, the third respondent will be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings for recovery. [Paras 14, 15] [827-F-H; 828-A-D]
Smrita Jain v. HUDA Decision of Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.14864 of 2013; Ved Prakash Kathuria v. HUDA Decision of Supreme Court in SLP(C)
No. 31841 of 2011 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.