Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Municipal Corporation Chandigarh and Ors. Etc. vs. Shantikunj Investment Pvt. Ltd. Etc.

Country/Territory
India
Type of court
National - higher court
Date
Feb 28, 2006
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
Supreme Court of India
Seat of court
New Delhi
Judge
Agrawal, B.N.
Mathur, A.K.
Reference number
AIR2006SC1270, 2006(2)SCALE712, (2006)4SCC109
Language
English
Subject
Water
Keyword
Tax/levy Water supply Water rights Fiscal and market measures Potable water
Abstract
In all these petitions, there are two class of petitions, one filed by the private parties/individuals against the Division Bench judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court whereby the Division Bench has not given any relief following its judgment passed in CWP No. 13695 of 2001 dated 18.2,2002. Another class of cases in which the Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh and the Chandigarh Administration have filed the special leave petitions against the order passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court against the judgment dated 2.2.2002 passed in M/s. Shantikunj Investment Pvt. Ltd. and batch the cases have been divided into two class of cases i.e. one governed by M/s. Shantikunj Investment Pvt. Ltd. and the other governed by M/s. D.L.G. Builders Private Limited. The Supreme Court is only deciding the question in principle and leaving the rest to be decided by the High Court. The challenge in these various petitions filed before the Punjab & Haryana High Court was that the basic amenities were not provided and, therefore, the Chandigarh Administration and the Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh were not entitled to charge interest at 18% or 10%, as the case may be, on the installment as well as non-payment of installment and nonpayment of the ground rents. Water supply was one of the concerned amenities. The term amenity in the context of real estate is to mean the facilities as provided under Section 2(b) of the 'amenities' of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 but it can never be treated to mean that this is a condition precedent. Nowhere in the conditions of lease or in the auction there is a specific promise on the part of the Administration that providing of facilities shall be condition precedent. Though the court held that no such specific condition existed, it did ask the High Court to grant compensation in cases where drinking water and sewerage facilities were not provided.
Full text
COU-156166.pdf
Website
www.indiankanoon.org