PARSHOTAM LAL & ANR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 4078-4079 of 2016, Judgment Date: Apr 18, 2016

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4078-4079 OF 2016
          [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS.  37481-37482 OF 2013]


PARSHOTAM LAL & ANR                                          Appellant(s)

                                VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS                                       Respondent(s)

                               J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.
1.    Leave granted.

2.     The  issue  raised  in  these  appeals  pertains  to  the  discretion
exercised  by  the  Revisional/Appellate  Authority  with  regard   to   the
percentage of forfeiture on surrender of plots.

3.    Having noticed that there is  no  uniform  approach,  this  Court,  by
order dated 01.04.2016, directed the respondents to get  instruction  as  to
why a  similar  treatment,  as  in  Annexure  P6,  be  not  granted  to  the
appellants as well.

4.    The learned counsel appearing  for  the  respondents  rightly  submits
that there cannot be a uniform standard because  the  factual  position  may
vary from case to case and that has a  bearing  on  the  percentage  of  the
forfeiture.  It is also pointed out that the entire exercise is carried  out
only as per the provisions under the Statute.

5.    We have no quarrel with the submissions.  However,  having  regard  to
the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases,  we  are  of  the  view
that the interest of justice would be met if a direction is issued  to  have
a similar treatment, as in Annexure P6, to the appellants  herein  as  well.
Ordered accordingly.

6.    The appeals are,  accordingly,  allowed  with  a  direction  that  the
percentage of forfeiture in the case  of  the  appellants  herein  shall  be
reduced to 2%.

7.    We make it clear that the above order is in  the  peculiar  facts  and
circumstances of these cases and may not be treated as a precedent.
      No costs.
                                                   .......................J.
                                                           [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]


                                                   .......................J.
                                                            [ R. BANUMATHI ]

      New Delhi;
      April 18, 2016.