Land Dispute Settlement: Supreme Court Modifies Judgment in Long-Standing Case

The case of M/s Greater Ashoka and Land Development Company vs. Kanti Prasad Jain (Deceased) Through LRs revolves around a dispute regarding the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land in Faridabad. This case, which dates back to the 1960s, was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court on December 6, 2023.

The dispute arose when the respondent applied for a plot in 1963, paying an initial sum towards its purchase. However, due to legislative changes and bureaucratic hurdles, the appellant failed to fulfill the contract within a reasonable timeframe. The case went through various judicial levels, culminating in a decision by the Supreme Court.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner, M/s Greater Ashoka and Land Development Company, argued that the contract was frustrated due to changes in regulatory requirements under the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963, and the Haryana Restriction of Development and Regulation of Colonies Act, 1971. They contended that:

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-remands-land-fragmentation-case-for-fresh-consideration/

• The respondent failed to pay the required earnest money and subsequent installments.
• Significant legal changes required them to obtain fresh permissions, delaying the project.
• The respondent sought a refund of his deposit in 1975 and 1976, indicating that he had abandoned his claim for the plot.
• By 1982, the company offered an alternative plot at a revised rate, which the respondent declined.
• The appellant was prepared to refund the earnest money with an enhanced interest rate but opposed the enforcement of the sale deed at the original price of ₹25 per square yard.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent’s counsel countered that:

• The delay was entirely due to the appellant’s inability to develop the land despite collecting money from prospective buyers.
• Even though an alternative plot was offered in 1982, the price was drastically increased to ₹135 per square yard without transparency regarding external development charges.
• The respondent never refused the offer but merely sought further clarification on financial details.
• The case was filed within the limitation period, and the company’s unwillingness to disclose essential information cast doubt on their bona fides.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment

The Supreme Court considered the following key points:

• The original allotment was made in 1963, but nearly six decades had passed without fulfillment.
• The appellant’s claim that all plots had been sold was noted but was not deemed a sufficient defense.
• The respondent had indeed filed an alternative claim for compensation, not just for the refund of earnest money.
• The market value of the land had appreciated significantly over the years, making simple reimbursement inadequate.

The Court ruled that:

“Considering the totality of the facts, in our view, the interest of justice will meet in case the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court is modified to the extent that instead of getting the sale deed of the plot registered at ₹25 per square yard, in the alternative, the appellant pays a total amount of ₹50,00,000/- to the respondent as full and final settlement of claim in the suit.”

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-sets-aside-high-court-order-in-property-dispute-due-to-procedural-lapses/

Conclusion

This decision represents a balance between enforcing contractual obligations and adapting to changed circumstances over a long period. While the respondent did not receive the original plot at the agreed-upon price, they were granted substantial financial compensation in recognition of the long delay and the appreciation of land value. This judgment underscores the importance of fair dealing in real estate transactions and the judiciary’s role in ensuring equitable outcomes when contractual disputes are prolonged.

Petitioner Name: M/s Greater Ashoka and Land Development Company.
Respondent Name: Kanti Prasad Jain (Deceased) Through LRs.
Judgment By: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Rajesh Bindal.
Place Of Incident: Faridabad.
Judgment Date: 05-12-2023.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: ms-greater-ashoka-a-vs-kanti-prasad-jain-(d-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-05-12-2023.pdf