Full Judgment Text
1
[NONREPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITON
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5799 OF 2021
New Okhla Industrial Development
Authority & Ors ..Appellant(s)
Versus
24 Oranges Lab LLP & Anr. ..Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition (C) No.27632
of 2014 by which the High Court has allowed the said Writ
Petition preferred by the respondents herein – original writ
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2021.09.21
16:58:18 IST
Reason:
petitioners by which the High Court has disposed of the said
writ petition by observing that in view of the subsequent
2
execution of the lease deed in favour of the respondents herein
original writ petitioners on 21.10.2014 determining the
market value of the plot in question at Rs.5900/ per
sq.meter, the original respondent – NOIDA has preferred the
present appeal.
2. Shri Sourav Roy, Learned Counsel has appeared on
behalf of the appellants. Learned Advocate appearing on
behalf of the appellants has vehemently submitted that the
High Court has materially erred in disposing of the writ
petition by observing that in view of the execution of the lease
deed dated 21.10.2014 in favour of the original writ petitioners
at Rs.5900/ per sq.meter, it would prevail over the allotment
letter dated 08.05.2014 and therefore the writ petition no
longer survives.
2.1 It is vehemently submitted by Learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellants that as such the lease deed dated
21.10.2014 in favour of the original writ petitioners at
Rs.5900/ per sq.meter was pursuant to the interim order
passed by the High Court dated 07.07.2014 in writ petition
3
and subject to the ultimate outcome of the main writ petition.
It is submitted that the price in the lease deed dated
21.10.2014 of Rs.5900/ per sq.meter was interim and ad hoc
and by way of interim measure only and therefore solely on
that basis the High Court is not justified in observing that in
view of the execution of the lease deed dated 21.10.2014 it
would prevail over the allotment order dated 08.05.2014.
2.2. Heavy reliance is placed on the interim order passed by
the High Court vide order dated 07.07.2014 passed in the
main writ petition as well as the conditions in the lease deed
dated 21.10.2014 and the terms and conditions for allotment
of industrial plot more particularly Clause 2(d) which provides
the rates of allotment stated in the allotment letter are subject
to change without notice and that the rates prevailing on the
date of issue of allotment letter would be applicable,
irrespective of the date of application and interview.
3. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Sanjay
Kumar Tyagi, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents.
4
3.1 It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the
case and considering the fact in the lease deed dated
21.10.2014 nothing was mentioned that the lease deed dated
21.10.2014 is subject to the ultimate outcome of the main writ
petition and/or the rates mentioned in the lease deed i.e.
Rs.5900/ per sq.meter is tentative and/or ad hoc and it was
submitted that therefore when the subsequent execution of
the lease deed dated 21.10.2014 at Rs.5900/ per sq.meter
was final for all purpose and conclusive, the High Court has
rightly observed that the said lease deed shall be binding upon
both the parties and therefore the High Court has rightly
accepted the rate at Rs.5900/ per sq.meter.
3.2 Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
has also tried to make submission on merits on other points
which as such are not dealt with and/or considered by the
High Court at all. And for the reasons stated hereinbelow we
propose to remand the matter to the High Court for fresh
consideration of the original writ petition. We therefore do not
enter any further on merits and/or the submissions by
5
Learned counsels appearing for the respective parties on
merits.
4. Having heard Learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties and considering the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court, we are of the opinion that
the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is
unsustainable.
4.1 The High Court has disposed of the main writ petition
accepting the rate at Rs.5900/ per sq.meter solely on the
basis of the subsequent lease deed executed in favour of the
petitioners on 21.10.2014 and treating the said lease deed at
Rs.5900/ per sq.meter as binding between the parties.
However, the High Court has not at all appreciated and/or
considered the fact that the rate of Rs.5900/ per sq.meter
was fixed by the NOIDA as mentioned in the lease deed in view
of the interim order passed by the High Court vide order dated
07.07.2014 which as such was by way of interim measure.
Interim order dated 07.07.2014 in Writ Petition No.27632 of
2014 reads as under:
6
“Sri Shivam Yadav has accepted notice for the
respondents Authority.
The petitioner has come up questioning the action of
the respondents in calling upon the petitioner to deposit an
enhanced amount in respect of the allotment of a
commercial plot.
The dispute was occasioned on account of the refusal
to make allotment to the petitioner and the petitioner
approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.52933 of
2010, which was allowed on 11.10.2013. A copy of the
judgment has been filed as Annexure 10 to the writ petition.
Para 25 of the said judgment categorically set aside the
earlier refusal and directed the authority to consider the
application of the petitioner in the light of the observations
made therein.
The respondentAuthority appears to have questioned
the correctness of the said decision by filing a Special Leave
to Appeal which was dismissed on 24.3.2014, a copy whereof
is annexed as Annexure 11 to the writ petition.
In the aforesaid background the respondentAuthority
has now proceeded to allot the said plot to the petitioner but
on an enhanced rate.
Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner, submits that this enhancement is absolutely
uncalled for and the respondents are not bound to realise
the enhanced amount in terms of clause 2(d) of the scheme.
For this he has invited the attention of the Court to the
judgment interpartes.
Sri Shivam Yadav prays that he may be granted time
to file a counter affidavit in order to meet the aforesaid
argument.
In the aforesaid circumstances, we provide as an
interim measure that the allotment of the petitioner shall be
made at the rate of Rs.5900/ per sq. mt. and the petitioner
7
shall deposit the amount accordingly with the respondents.
This arrangement is an interim measure during the
pendency of the writ petition.
So far as the dispute of the balance enhanced amount
is concerned, the same shall be settled and disposed of after
exchange of affidavits.
Three weeks' time is granted to file counter affidavit.
Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within one week thereafter.”
4.2 The High Court has not at all appreciated the fact that
the lease deed dated 21.10.2014 was followed by the interim
order dated 07.07.2014 in which it was specifically mentioned
that the rate at Rs.5900/ per sq.meter shall be as an interim
measure. In order dated 07.07.2014, it has been specifically
observed that so far as the dispute of the balance enhanced
amount is concerned, the same shall be settled and disposed
of after exchange of affidavits. In that view of the matter the
High Court has erred in observing that the rate of Rs.5900/
per sq.meter mentioned in the lease deed dated 21.10.2014
shall be conclusive and final and binding between the parties.
What was ordered by way of interim measure cannot be said to
be final and conclusive between the parties. In that view of the
matter the High Court has erred in disposing of the main writ
8
petition by observing that the rate at Rs.5900/ per sq.meter
mentioned in the lease deed dated 21.10.2014 shall be final
and conclusive between the parties and the same shall over
ride the conditions mentioned in the allotment order dated
08.05.2014. The High Court has disposed of the writ petition
solely on the basis of the execution of the lease deed dated
21.10.2014 at Rs.5900/ per sq.meter which as observed
hereinabove was only by way of interim measure pursuant to
the interim order dated 08.05.2014 passed by the High Court
vide order dated 07.07.2014. The High Court has not at all
considered other aspects, if any, on merits. Therefore, the
matter is required to be remitted to the High Court to consider
the writ petition afresh in accordance with law and on its own
merits and considering the observations made hereinabove.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above the
impugned judgment and order dated 07.07.2014 passed by
the High Court holding that the rate mentioned in the lease
deed dated 21.10.2014 at Rs.5900/ sq.meter is final and
conclusive and binding between the parties and consequently
9
disposing of the main writ petition is quashed and set aside.
It is observed that the rate at Rs.5900/ per sq.meter
mentioned in the lease deed dated 21.10.2014 was by way of
interim measure only pursuant to the interim order passed by
the High Court dated 07.07.2014. As the High Court has not
at all considered the writ petition on merits, we remit the
matter to the High Court for fresh consideration of the main
writ petition on merits. Writ Petition (C) No.27632 of 2014
before the High Court is ordered to be restored to the file of the
High Court which shall be disposed of by the High Court at
the earliest and preferably within a period of six months from
the date of the receipt of the present order.
6. The present appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid
extent however there shall be no order as to costs.
…………………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
(A.S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi;
September 21, 2021