Site icon Legal Vidhiya

JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. S.PARAMJEET SINGH & ANR., 2023

Admin
Advertisements
Spread the love
CITATION2023 INSC 922
DATE OF JUDGMENT13 OCTOBER, 2023
COURTSUPREME COURT OF INDIA
APPELLANTJAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESPONDENTS. PARAMJEET SINGH & ANR.
BENCHSANJIV KHANNAS.V.N. BHATTI

INTRODUCTION

This appeal by the Jammu Development Authority takes exception to the judgment dated 02.12.2022 passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir. In which high court held that the property for which the respondent-S.Paramjeet Singh has paid the earnest amount of 50% will be given to him as it was due to the negligence of the Jammu Development Authority that the respondent was not able to pay the remaining amount.

.FACTS OF THE CASE

1.) The respondent S. Paramjeet Singh participated in a public auction on 12-04-1999 and he placed the highest bid with the amount of RS 8,30,000( rupees eight lakh thirty thousand) for plot no-244,sector-1, Trikuta Nagar housing colony. Then he received a letter from JDA( Jammu Development Authority) asking to submit 50% of the said amount and the rest in the next coming 6 months. As requested, the defendant paid RS 4,15,000( four lakh fifteen thousand) which was 50% of his original bidding amount.

2.) After that the remaining amount was not paid by the defendant- S.Paramjeet Singh reason for which he says that he didn’t receive any kind of letter from JDA and even when he wanted to make the payment JDA didn’t take it from him. To which letter sent by the respondent on 25.05.2001 acts as proof. In response to which petitioner- Jammu Development Authority concludes that they did send letters to the respondent-S.Paramjeet Singh which was proved to be sent to the wrong address in the impugned judgment dated 02.12.2022.

3.) Then the remaining amount was not paid till 2010. So, the petitioner JDA canceled the allotment and issued an advertisement for a fresh auction on 09-10-2023. The advertisement was published in the newspaper on 11.12.2010. In response to this S.Paramjeet Singh immediately filed an original writ petition (OWP) in the high court in December 2010.

4.) In the fresh auction JDA was offered a bid of 38,00,000 by respondent no.2- Vivek Mahajan in regards to which he paid the earnest amount of RS 2,71,000 as Jammu development authority believes that due to the time lapse the property should be re-auctioned. 

ISSUES RAISED

  1. Should JDA be given the right to re-auction the property due to time-lapse?
  2. What is the authority of respondent no. 2-Vivek Mahajan on the plot in question?

JUDGEMENT

  1. The court supported the judgment done on 02.12.2022 and balanced the equities while disposing of the appeal
  2. To balance out the equities, the court directed that respondent no. 2 – Vivek Mahajan will be refunded Rs.2,71,000/- (Rupees two lakhs seventy-one thousand only) along with simple interest at the rate of 15% per annum.
  3. Earnest money paid by respondent no. 1 – S. Parmjeet Singh will be forfeited and will not be refunded. Rs.4,15,000/- (Rupees four lakhs fifteen thousand only), less the earnest money deposited by Respondent no. 1 – S. Paramjeet Singh, will be refunded to him with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum with effect from 01.01.2001.
  4. The impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.

ANALYSIS

  1. Due to the negligence of the petitioner, the defendant should not suffer the loss. It was the duty of the Jammu Development Authority to notify the respondent about the submission deadline for the remaining payment.
  2. JDA failed to fulfill its responsibility due to its sheer negligence in sending the letter to the wrong address even after the notification from the post office that the address was not correct. They cannot possibly blame defendant no 1-S.Paramjeet for not paying the remaining amount.
  3. As the defendant claims to have tried to pay the amount that was not taken by JDA to which the letter written by the defendant on 20.05.2001 provides proof.
  4. It is believed that no one should suffer at the end of another due to negligence or otherwise. Therefore, the respondent S.Paramjeet Singh was given the opportunity by the court which he should’ve been given years ago to acquire plot no-244, sector-1, Trikuta Nagar housing colony.

CONCLUSION

In the case of Jammu Development Authority v. S.Paramjeet Singh, a lot of inconveniences, loss, and time-lapse were suffered by both parties due to the sheer negligence of the Jammu development authority but it was put to an end on 13th of October 2023 when the supreme court of India disposed the appeal and held the judgment made on 02.12.2023 justifiable. 

REFERENCES

  1. https://indiankanoon.org/

This Article is written by Nivedita Narwal student of the Institute of Law K.U.K an intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

PDF 📄
Exit mobile version