Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for Specific Performance Due to Delay: Surjeet Singh Sahni vs. State of U.P. (28 February 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 28 February 2022

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Can a party seek specific performance of a contract through a writ petition after a prolonged delay? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying that such petitions are not maintainable, especially when a suit for specific performance would be time-barred. This judgment emphasizes the importance of timely action in legal matters and reiterates that a belated representation does not extend the limitation period. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, who delivered a unanimous decision.

Case Background

The petitioner, Surjeet Singh Sahni, entered into a Sale Deed with NOIDA (New Okhla Industrial Development Authority) on 19 September 2001. Under this deed, Sahni sold a plot of land to NOIDA. Clause 12 of the Sale Deed stipulated that Sahni would be allotted a plot equivalent to 10% of the total land sold, upon payment of 10% of the original sale amount. The clause also mentioned a “Rehabilitation Bonus” for the original farmer.

Approximately ten years later, on 10 March 2010, Sahni made a representation to NOIDA, requesting the allotment of the 10% plot as per the Sale Deed. When NOIDA did not act on his representation, Sahni filed Writ Petition No. 5599 of 2011 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. He sought directions to NOIDA to allot the 10% land for “Abadi” (residential) purposes, as per Clause 12 of the Sale Deed and the resolution of the 102nd NOIDA Board meeting held on 7 January 1998.

The High Court, despite noting the 11-year delay, entertained the writ petition and directed NOIDA to decide Sahni’s representation within six weeks. Subsequently, on 23 May 2017, NOIDA rejected Sahni’s representation. Aggrieved, Sahni filed another Writ Petition No. 40336 of 2017, again seeking the 10% plot. The High Court dismissed this second writ petition, leading Sahni to file a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad initially entertained the first writ petition (Writ Petition No. 5599 of 2011) despite an 11-year delay from the execution of the Sale Deed. Instead of dismissing it on grounds of delay and laches, the High Court directed NOIDA to decide the petitioner’s representation. Subsequently, when NOIDA rejected the representation, the petitioner filed a second writ petition (Writ Petition No. 40336 of 2017). The High Court dismissed this second writ petition on several grounds: firstly, that a writ petition arising out of a contract was not maintainable, and the petitioner should have filed a suit for specific performance; secondly, that the petition was filed after a 16-year delay, which was fatal for any claim arising from the acquisition; and thirdly, that Clause 12 of the Sale Deed pertained to the original Khatedar (landowner) and the petitioner was not the original agriculturist.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of contractual obligations and the maintainability of writ petitions for specific performance of contracts. The relevant legal framework includes:

• Section 6 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976: This provision deals with the acquisition of land for industrial development in Uttar Pradesh. The judgment mentions that the original sale deed was executed under this provision.
• Article 226 of the Constitution of India: This article grants High Courts the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court should not entertain writ petitions for specific performance of contracts, especially after a significant delay.
• Limitation Act, 1963: While not explicitly mentioned, the principle of limitation is central to the judgment. The Supreme Court noted that a suit for specific performance would have been barred by limitation, and therefore, a writ petition seeking the same relief was also not maintainable.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that Clause 12 of the Sale Deed dated 19 September 2001, clearly entitled him to a plot of 10% of the total land sold to NOIDA.
• He contended that the “Original Farmer” was also entitled to a “Rehabilitation Bonus” as per the Sale Deed.
• The petitioner asserted that his representation made in 2010 and subsequent writ petitions were valid and sought the allotment of land as agreed in the Sale Deed.
• The petitioner argued that the High Court should have directed NOIDA to comply with the terms of the Sale Deed.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent, NOIDA, contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as it arose out of a contractual matter.
• They argued that the petitioner should have filed a suit for specific performance, which would have been barred by limitation due to the delay.
• NOIDA emphasized that the writ petition was filed after a considerable delay of 16 years, which was fatal to the claim.
• They argued that Clause 12 of the Sale Deed was intended for the original Khatedar (landowner) and the petitioner was not the original agriculturist, as he had purchased the land in 1970.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues, but the core issues addressed in the judgment are:

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for specific performance of a contract, particularly when a suit for specific performance would be barred by limitation.
2. Whether a belated representation can extend the period of limitation for filing a writ petition.
3. Whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the writ petition on grounds of delay and laches and on merits.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any authorities in the judgment. However, it relied on the principle that mere representation does not extend the period of limitation and reiterated that writ petitions should be filed expeditiously. The Court also emphasized that writ petitions for specific performance of contracts are generally not maintainable, particularly when a suit for specific performance would be time-barred.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court held that the writ petition seeking specific performance of the contract was not maintainable, especially considering the significant delay. The Court emphasized that a belated representation does not extend the period of limitation and that the High Court should have dismissed the first writ petition at the outset due to delay and laches.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The principle that mere representation does not extend limitation was followed by the Court.
• The principle that writ petitions for specific performance are not maintainable was followed by the Court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principles of limitation and the maintainability of writ petitions in contractual matters. The Court emphasized that:

• Writ petitions seeking specific performance of contracts are generally not maintainable, especially when a suit for specific performance would be barred by limitation.
• A belated representation does not extend the period of limitation, and aggrieved parties must approach the court within a reasonable time.
• High Courts should dismiss writ petitions at the threshold if they are found to be guilty of delay and laches, rather than directing the authorities to decide a belated representation.

The Court quoted, “mere representation does not extend the period of limitation and the aggrieved person has to approach the Court expeditiously and within reasonable time.”

The Court also stated, “If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches, the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a representation and/or directing the authority to decide the representation, once it is found that the original writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches.”

Finally, the Court reiterated, “No writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be maintainable and/or entertainable for specific performance of the contract and that too after a period of 10 years by which time even the suit for specific performance would have been barred by limitation.”

Key Takeaways

• Writ petitions for specific performance of contracts are generally not maintainable, especially when a suit for specific performance would be barred by limitation.
• A belated representation does not extend the period of limitation. Aggrieved parties must approach the court within a reasonable time.
• High Courts should dismiss writ petitions at the threshold if they are found to be guilty of delay and laches, rather than directing authorities to decide belated representations.
• This judgment reinforces the importance of timely action in legal matters and the limitations on using writ jurisdiction to enforce contractual rights.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not maintainable for specific performance of contracts, especially when a suit for specific performance would be barred by limitation. The judgment reinforces the principle that a belated representation does not extend the period of limitation. This decision clarifies the limitations on using writ jurisdiction to enforce contractual rights and emphasizes the importance of timely action in legal matters. There is no change in the previous position of law, but a reiteration of the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition filed by Surjeet Singh Sahni, affirming the High Court’s decision. The Court held that the writ petition seeking specific performance of a contract was not maintainable due to significant delay and that a belated representation does not extend the period of limitation. This judgment emphasizes the need for timely legal action and clarifies the limitations on using writ jurisdiction for contractual disputes.