FULJIT KAUR versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

FULJIT KAUR versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

The demand for 'additional price' for the allotted plot is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, as the statutory scheme under the 1965 Rules permits the distinction between provisional price and tentative price, with the sale price to be determined by the State, taking into account enhanced compensation and development costs. Article 14 does not operate to allow a claim to benefits arising out of a wrong or illegal order in another's favour. Dismissal of an SLP in limine does not merge or affirm the High Court's decision nor create binding precedent.

Parties
Appellant: Fuljit Kaur; Respondents: State of Punjab & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 4763 of 1992
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Allotment of Urban Plots, Price Determination by State, Sale Price Vs. Provisional/tentative Price, Doctrine of Merger, Equality Before Law (article 14), Dismissal of SLP in Limine
Urban Development Property Law Constitutional Law Allotment of Urban Plots Price Determination by State Sale Price Vs. Provisional/tentative Price Doctrine of Merger Equality Before Law (article 14) +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fuljit Kaur

Appellant

State of Punjab & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 4763 of 1992

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the demand for additional price by the State upon allotment of a plot, initially on deposit of 'provisional price', is arbitrary or unreasonable under law.
  2. 2 Whether the distinction between 'provisional price' and 'tentative price' under the Punjab Urban Estate (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965 allows subsequent demand for 'additional price'.
  3. 3 Whether Article 14 of the Constitution permits negative equality by extension of benefits of a wrong decision to others.

Ratio Decidendi

The demand for 'additional price' for the allotted plot is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, as the statutory scheme under the 1965 Rules permits the distinction between provisional price and tentative price, with the sale price to be determined by the State, taking into account enhanced compensation and development costs. Article 14 does not operate to allow a claim to benefits arising out of a wrong or illegal order in another's favour. Dismissal of an SLP in limine does not merge or affirm the High Court's decision nor create binding precedent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs