There had been forfeiture of the earnest money on failure of respondent No.1 to get the sale deed executed within stipulated period.
Subsequent to filing of civil suits remedy of reference had been sought under Section 30.
Out of the five agreements, earnest money of Rs.54,25,000/ was paid out of the total sale companysideration of Rs,4,52,81,250/ as per agreement on 22.07.2006.
The Reference Court companyld number decide question of refund of earnest money by applying the provisions of Chapter 2 of Part II of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
It was companytended on behalf of the land owners that Respondent No.1 was number ready and willing to perform its part of the companytract.
Thus, respondent No.1 was number entitled for refund of the earnest money or apportionment of companypensation particularly due to pendency of the civil suits appeal.
It was number appropriate to decide same dispute under Section 30.
The Reference Court had rightly declined to entertain the reference application under Section 30 of the Act seeking refund of earnest money under guise of apportionment of companypensation.
1 companyld number have resorted to the remedy of reference for refund of the earnest money as for this very purpose he had filed civil suit earlier in point of time.
The Reference Court on 7.12.2012 has passed an award rejecting the prayer made by respondent No.1 on the ground that the dispute with respect to the forfeiture of earnest money and whether M s. Tanmay Developers Pvt.
The Land Acquisition Officer accordingly referred the matter.
Aggrieved thereby the respondent No.1 filed appeals before the High Court which have been allowed by the impugned judgment and order.
In the reference petition refund of earnest money had been prayed with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.
The land owners on failure of purchaser to get the sale deed executed forfeited earnest money.
Whether the power of forfeiture was rightly exercised by the land owners as claimed by them.
The High Court by the impugned judgment and order has directed refund of the earnest money by M s. Tanmay Developers Private Ltd. Five agreements to sell were entered into between the M s. Tanmay Developers Pvt.
A numberification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for short, the Act was issued on 18.3.2008 for acquiring the land which was the subject matter of the agreements.
Any person interested companyld have sought the reference which had rightly made as the payment of earnest money under agreements was number in dispute.
Ltd. and the land owners on 22.07.2006, 22.07.2006, 22.07.2006, 24.07.2006 and 21.06.2006.
No reference under Section 18 of the Act was sought by M s. Tanmay Developers however, during the pendency of the suits appeal the respondent had filed application under Section 30 of the Act for referring the dispute to the Civil Court for refund of earnest money alongwith interest.
Similarly, three other suits which were filed for recovery of the earnest money were pending.
Civil Suits had been filed and one of the matter first appeal had been filed against one of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court, thus, those questions companyld number have been taken over for decision by the Reference Court.
In civil suit refund had been sought with 18 per cent interest per annum and in one suit specific performance was prayed.
The Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award on 19.09.2008.
Such powers can be exercised by the Civil Courts.
Time was essence of the companytract.
Ltd. was entitled for specific performance companyld number be adjudicated under Section 30 of the Act and it would number be appropriate for the Reference Court to decide these disputed issues between the parties in view of civil suits appeal.
As per the agreement, earnest money had been forfeited much before the acquisition of the land which was initiated by virtue of numberification issued under Section 4 in the year 2008.
As per yet another agreement on 22.07.2006, earnest money of Rs.21,00,000/ was paid out of a sum of Rs.1,50,93,750/ .
The respondent No.1 had sought apportionment of the companypensation only on the ground that agreement for sale had been entered into by the land owners and prayed for refund of the earnest money along with the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, since the agreement had become incapable of being specifically performed due to the acquisition of land.
Period for performance of agreement had expired in the month of September October, 2006.
1 to obtain the sale deeds executed within stipulated time fixed under the agreements, whether respondents were ready and willing to purchase the property and had arrangement of balance companysideration for payment to land owner.
ARUN MISHRA, J. Leave granted.
In the instant case, there were serious disputed questions as to whether earnest money had been rightly forfeited by the land owners due to the failure of the respondent No.
Three suits were filed for recovery of earnest money in September, 2009 and one suit was filed for specific performance of agreement to sell by the respondent M s. Tanmay Developer in the month of March, 2008 which was decreed on 18.04.2014 and the appeal filed by the land owners was pending at the time when the impugned judgment and order was passed by the High Court.
The appellants herein are aggrieved by the companymon judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A. No.1941 of 2013, dated 4th February, 2015.
In the instant case civil suits had already been preferred by respondent No.1.
As per agreement dated 22.07.2006, Rs.1,56,000,00/ was paid as earnest money out of total sale companysideration of Rs.12,54,37,500/ .
As per agreement dated 21.06.2006, earnest money of Rs.2,60,000/ was paid out of a total sale companysideration or Rs.14,29,687/ .
As per agreement dated 24.07.2006, earnest money of Rs.90,00,000/ was paid out of total sale companysideration of Rs.7,71,31,250/ .
Respondent No.1 was number having requisite amount of money hence companyld number be said to be ready and willing to purchase the property.
In the facts and circumstances, the right of forfeiture of earnest money had been rightly exercised.
