M/S Designers Park Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd vs State Of U.P. And Others

A.F.R.
Reserved On 12.05.2026
Delivered On 25.05.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT – C No. - 6524 of 2008
M/s Designer Park
Sahkari Awas Samiti
Limited
…..Petitioners(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and others …..Respondents(s)
Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Praveen Kumar, Puran Nath Shukla,
Sarita Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A. Khanna, C.S.C., Pranjal Mehrotra
Court No. - 21
HON’BLE , J.
MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI
HON’BLE , J.
KUNAL RAVI SINGH
1. Heard Sri P.N. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Suresh Singh Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri
Pranjal Mehrotra for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :
“(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondent No. 2 to refund the wrongly realized
amount of Rs. 29,22,675.00 with interest to the petitioner's
Society.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondent No. 2 to issue a 'Non Dues

(2)
Writ C No. 6524 of 2008
Certificate' in favour of the petitioner's Society at an early date,
which may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
(c) Issue any other writ, order or direction in favour of the
petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(d) Award the costs of the petition in favour of the
petitioner.”
FACTS:
3. The present dispute relates to Group Housing Plot No. B-009/1A,
Sector 62, NOIDA (hereinafter referred to as “the leased plot”) and the
payment of one-time lease rent paid by the petitioner to NOIDA
(hereinafter referred to as “the Authority”). The petitioner contends that
the one-time lease rent was paid before the execution of the lease deed,
whereas the Authority contends that the one-time lease rent was not paid
in full, thus resulting in the issuance of a demand notice for the balance
amount.
4. The petitioner was allotted a Group Housing plot, namely, Group
Housing Plot No. B-9/1-A, Sector 62, Noida, under the Group Housing
Scheme No. GHP/01/2001 (1). The allotment letter was issued on
19.05.2001. Clause 3 of the allotment letter provided for payment on lease
rent either on a yearly basis or by way of one-time lease rent equivalent to
11 times the yearly lease rent payable at the time of execution of the lease
deed. The possession of the plot was handed over to the petitioner through
a possession letter dated 08.01.2002.
5. The petitioner, by means of challan no. 14940 dated 08.01.2002
deposited Rs. 5,56,700/- and by means of challan No. 14943 dated
21.02.2002 deposited Rs. 55,67,000/-. It is averred by the petitioner that
the aggregate amount of Rs. 61,23,700/- constituted one-time lease rent
payable prior to the execution of the lease deed. Thereafter, the lease deed

(3)
Writ C No. 6524 of 2008
was executed between the petitioner and Noida on 28.02.2002. Clause II
(a) of the lease deed records that the petitioner has made full payment of
one-time lease rent.
6. On 09.01.2004, the Authority issued a letter to the petitioner
stating that the sum of Rs. 17,64,605/- was due towards the leased plot
and directing the petitioner to deposit the same in the designated bank
account of the Authority. Subsequently, on 13.03.2006, another letter was
issued by the Authority to the petitioner stating that after adjustment of
records, a sum of Rs. 2,552/- remains due till 30.08.2006. The letter
further stated that “the amount due towards Lease rent at the time of the
lease deed is being adjusted towards Lease rent on an annual basis”. The
petitioner replied by stating that an amount of Rs. 2600/- has been
deposited vide receipt no. 1430 on 27.02.2006. It was further asserted that
the one-time lease rent had already been deposited, and the matter stood
settled. A request was also made for the issuance of a No Dues Certificate
from the Authority.
7. Thereafter, on 24.04.2006, a demand notice was issued stating that
in response to the letter of the petitioner dated 23.03.2006, an outstanding
payment of Rs. 29,22,675/- is due towards one-time lease rent. The
petitioner was directed to deposit the same in the account of the Authority.
8. An office order dated 17.05.2006 was issued by the Chief Finance
and Accounts Officer, NOIDA, stating that if the accounts office found
any shortfall in the total amount of lease rent deposited, then only the
balance amount, along with simple interest, will be recovered by treating
the same as payment under the one-time lease rent payment.
9. On 17.05.2006, the petitioner submitted a representation to the
Chief Accounts Officer, Noida, requesting that the issue regarding one-
time lease rent be treated as settled, as the entire amount had already been
deposited before execution of the lease deed. Thereafter, another letter

(4)
Writ C No. 6524 of 2008
dated 19.05.2006 was sent to the Authority by the petitioner with regard
to the demand raised by the Authority.
10. On 23.05.2006, the Authority, in its weekly meeting, passed a
resolution holding that the petitioner had initially obtained possession by
depositing one year’s lease rent. Thereafter, at the time of execution of the
lease deed, i.e. 28.02.2002, only “Ten years lease rent” was deposited
instead of “Eleven years lease rent” Consequently, the Committee
resolved that the amount deposited would be adjusted and a demand
would be raised for the balance towards one-time lease rent.
11. On 13.06.2006, a fresh demand notice reiterating the earlier
demand of Rs. 29,22,675/- was issued to the petitioner. In pursuance of
the demand so raised, the petitioner deposited Rs. 29,22,675/- under
protest vide challan no. 010546 on 28.06.2006. Thereafter, a letter was
sent to the Authority on 29.06.2006 stating that the amount had been
deposited under protest while reserving the right to challenge the demand
and requesting confirmation that no further dues remained outstanding.
12. Subsequently, another demand notice dated 03.07.2006 was issued
to the petitioner reiterating the same demand of Rs. 29, 22,675/. A reply
dated 14.07.2006 to the demand letter dated was sent to the Authority
seeking a review of the amount deposited earlier under protest. Further
prayer was made for the issuance of a no dues certificate.
13. Ultimately, on 15.12.2006, the Authority issued the no dues
certificate to the petitioner. Since the petitioner remained aggrieved by the
demand and recovery of Rs. 29,22,675/-, the petitioner filed the present
writ petition seeking a refund of the amount deposited under protest.
PETITIONER’S SUBMISSION:
14. Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner has made the
following submissions:

(5)
Writ C No. 6524 of 2008
(i) It was contended that the petitioner had deposited the entire one-
time lease rent prior to the execution of the lease deed. The deposit
of Rs. 5,56,700/- on 08.01.2002 and the deposit of Rs. 55,67,000 on
21.02.2002. Both the deposits were towards the one-time lease rent
payment. There was no default in the payment of one-time lease
rent and hence the subsequent demand of Rs. 29,22,675/- was
illegal and arbitrary. Thus, the amount so deposited under protest is
liable to be refunded.
(ii) Learned counsel submitted that the allotment letter specifically
provided two alternative remedies, namely payment of yearly lease
rent or payment of one-time lease rent, with an option of paying a
yearly lease rent or a one-time lease rent equivalent to 11 times the
lease rent. The petitioner exercised the option of payment of one-
time lease rent payment and deposited the entire amount of Rs.
61,23,700/- by 21.02.2001. Thus, as per the conditions of the
allotment letter, the one-time lease rent was paid before the
execution of the lease deed.
(iii) It was further submitted that the lease deed also confirmed that the
one-time lease rent had been paid. Reliance was placed upon Clause
III (a) of the lease deed, which specifically records that the lessee
has made full payment of the one-time lease rent.
(iv) Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner participated in a
special camp organised by the Authority to clear the dues, if any, of
the petitioner with regard to the lease. After due verification of the
documents at the special camp, it was found that only Rs. 2,552/-
remained due from the petitioner, which was duly deposited vide
receipt no. 1430 on 27.02.2006.
(v) It was argued that the subsequent demand of Rs. 29,22,675/-
towards the alleged balance amount of one-time lease rent is
patently illegal, particularly when the entire one-time rent had
already been deposited prior to the execution of the lease deed. It
was further submitted, in the letter dated 24.04.2006,no calculations
were provided to show as to how the amount was being demanded.

(6)
Writ C No. 6524 of 2008
The impugned demand was also perverse with the earlier letter
issued after the special camp, only Rs. 2,552/- had been shown as
outstanding and which amount was already deposited by the
petitioner.
(vi) Learned counsel further contented that the calculations furnished
in the supplementary counter affidavit are illegal and arbitrary.
According to the petitioner, the calculations do not take into account
the payment of one-time lease rent as categorically stated in the
lease deed. It was submitted that such an admission in the lease deed
cannot subsequently be superseded by any calculation to the
contrary.
(vii) It was next argued that the office order dated 17.10.1998 is not
applicable as the allotment conditions did not specify any such
condition. The allotment letter provided an option of yearly rent or
an option of one-time lease rent @ 11 times the yearly lease rent.
Since the petitioner had exercised the option of one-time lease rent
in accordance with the allotment conditions, the petitioner could not
subsequently be subjected to conditions contained in office orders
which were never communicated or made part of the contract.
(viii) Learned counsel also submitted that, the resolution passed by the
Committee as patently illegal and arbitrary. It was submitted that
the resolution was passed ex parte, as the petitioner was never heard
before the passing of the resolution, which inflicted civil
consequences upon the petitioner. It was further contended that the
resolution was also never communicated to the petitioner, and
therefore, it does not bind the petitioner in any manner. The
illegality is further compounded by the fact that the lease deed
mentioned that there are no dues towards one-time lease rent.
(ix) Reliance was also placed upon the RTI reply dated 26.12.2006,
wherein the Authority itself accepted that only an amount of Rs.
1,39,175/- remained payable. Learned counsel pointed out that the
Chief Accounts and Finance Officer had specifically endorsed the
remark “one-time accepted”. Therefore, the subsequent demand of

(7)
Writ C No. 6524 of 2008
a substantially higher amount was wholly perverse, arbitrary, and
contrary to the Authority’s own records.
(x) Lastly, it was submitted that the office order dated 27.05.2000 is
not applicable to the petitioner's case, as it only applied to cases
where the lessee wished to transfer from a yearly mode of payment
to one-time lease rent. Since the petitioner had opted for one-time
lease rent from the very inception, the said office order has no
relevance to the present dispute.
RESPONDENT Nos. 2 and 3 SUBMISSIONS :
15. Per contra, learned counsel on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3
made the following submission to refute the arguments advanced by the
petitioner’s counsel:
(i) It was submitted that the petitioner never deposited one-time lease
rent in one go. As per the respondents, at the time of execution of
getting the license agreement on 08.01.2002, only one year’s rent
was deposited, whereas on 21.02.2002, ten years' lease rent was
deposited. Thus, at no point of time, the lease rent for eleven years
deposited. As per the policy of the Authority, one-time lease rent
was required to be deposited either at the time of the license
agreement or at the time of execution of the lease deed, whichever
is earlier.
(ii) Learned counsel further relied upon the office order dated
17.10.1998, which clearly states that the lease rent shall be
deposited either on the date of possession or at the time of execution
of the lease deed, whichever is earlier. Therefore, the petitioner
should have deposited one-time lease rent for 11 years at the time
of getting possession, i.e. on 08.01.2001 itself. Since only ten years’
lease rent was deposited on 21.02.2002, the payment could not be
treated as one-time lease rent.
(iii) It was further argued that the lease rent was deposited on two
different dates; it cannot be assumed that the one-time lease rent has
been deposited.

(8)
Writ C No. 6524 of 2008
(iv) Learned counsel submitted that the Committee resolved that the
petitioner had deposited lease rent on two different dates, which
cannot be treated as one-time lease rent. Consequently, the
Committee resolved that the amounts already deposited be adjusted
and the balance amount be recovered from the petitioner, pursuant
to which the demand of Rs. 29,22,675/- was raised. It was thus
contended that the demand represented the legitimate balance
amount payable towards one-time lease rent.
(v) It was also argued that the petitioner cannot derive any benefit
from the letter dated 17.05.2006, as the petitioner never deposited
one-time lease rent in one go. The benefit could only be given if the
rent was deposited for 11 years in one go. The deposit of 10 years'
rent cannot be treated as one-time lease rent.
(vi) Learned counsel further submitted that the subsequent letter dated
03.07.2006 was issued by mistake due to some miscommunication
between different departments of the authorities, and therefore, the
letter does not create any right in favour of the petitioner.
(vii) It was next contended that since no dues certificate had been
issued to the petitioner on 15.12.2006, the grievance raised in the
writ petition is liable to be dismissed as such.
(viii) Learned counsel further submitted that an amount of Rs.
1,39,175/- was payable by the petitioner towards the lease rent
which was due from 08.01.2001 till 31.03.2001. Therefore, the
calculation given in the RTI reply was only with regard to the said
period. Reliance was placed upon the office order dated 27.05.2000,
which states that for calculating lease rent, financial years shall be
considered from April 1 st to March 31 st . Accordingly the rent
payable from 08.01.2001 till 31.03.2001 would be Rs. 1,39,175
(Rs. 5,56,700 * 3/12 = Rs. 1,39,175)
(ix) It was also contended that, as per the office order dated
27.05.2000, if the allottee wishes to make a one-time lease rent,
then the earlier deposited lease rent shall not be adjusted for
calculating the one-time settlement amount. Therefore, the earlier

(9)
Writ C No. 6524 of 2008
amount deposited on 08.01.2002 cannot be adjusted as one-time
lease rent.
(x) Lastly, it was argued that the amount of Rs. 29,22,675/-
represented the balance amount remaining after deducting the
earlier amount deposited as yearly rent. Since the petitioner had not
opted for a one-time lease rent, the deposit of Rs. 61,23,700/- was
adjusted towards yearly rent, and the demand of Rs. 29,22,675 was
the balance amount left, which the society had to pay as a one-time
settlement amount as per the resolution of the Committee.
16. Mr. Suresh Singh learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel appearing
on behalf of respondent no. 1 adopted the arguments made on behalf of
respondents nos 2 and 3. He has further submitted that once the no dues
certificate was issued in favor of the petitioner, the grievance raised in the
writ petition stood redressed and the writ petition deserve to be dismissed.
It was further submitted that as per the calculations attached in the
supplementary counter affidavit, it is clear that the petitioner never
deposited once time lease rent in accordance with the policy and as per
the resolution passed by the Committee, the balance amount of Rs.
29,22,675/- was lawfully demanded from the petitioner, which amount has
already been deposited by the petitioner. Accordingly, it was contended
that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground as well.
17. We have heard the rival submissions submitted by the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case. On the basis of
the submission and records annexed, the following points of
determination are framed for adjudication of the dispute.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION:
18. The points of determination are as follows :-
(I) Whether the amounts deposited by the petitioner on 08.01.2002
(Rs. 5,56,700/-) and 21.02.2001 (Rs. 55,67,000/-) can be treated
as a one-time lease rent deposit or not?

(10)
Writ C No. 6524 of 2008
(II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any refund with regard to the
Rs. 29,22,675/- deposited by the petitioner on 28.06.2006?
DISCUSSION:
19. It is the admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was allotted
the leased plot upon payment of certain consideration. The consideration
paid before the allotment is not the subject matter of the present dispute.
The present dispute is confined to the deposit of two amounts on
08.01.2002 and 21.02.2002, which the petitioner treats as one-time lease
rent as the same were deposited before the execution of the lease deed on
28.02.2002. However, the Authority does not treat the same as one-time
lease rent and categorically maintains the view that since rent was
deposited on two different dates therefore the first date i.e. 08.01.2002
was for the yearly rent due till 31.03.2002 while the amount deposited on
21.02.2002 represented lease rent for only ten years and, therefore, did not
satisfy the requirement of payment of eleven years’ lease rent .
20. Before adverting to the rival contention advanced by the parties, it
is necessary to keep in mind that the parties to the present dispute are
governed by the contract entered into between the parties. More
specifically, the allotment deed was issued in favour of the petitioner and
the lease deed was executed between the parties. These two documents
would govern the respective merits of the arguments advanced by the
parties as the parties with consent have entered into the same.
21. The allotment letter was issued to the petition on 19.05.2001. The
allotment letter, amongst other clauses, contained a clause with regard to
payment of lease rent. Clause 3 of the allotment letter is reproduced
below:
“3. LEASE RENT: The annual lease rent shall be payable in
advance every year @ 1% p.a. of the total premium of the plot.
This lease rent shall be enhanced after every 10 years, and this
enhancement will not exceed 50% of the lease rent last thus fixed.

(11)
Writ C No. 6524 of 2008
First such payment shall fall due at the time of execution of the
lease deed. Delay in payment of the advance lease rent will be
subject to payment of interest @ 18% p.a. compounded every half-
yearly. The onus of payment of lease rent would remain with the
allottee/lessee.
OR
You also have the option to pay 11 years' lease rent @ 1% p.a. of
total premium as one-time lease rent at the time of execution of
the lease deed of the plot.”
Thus, the allotment letter firstly specified the agreed lease rent,
which is 1% of the total premium of the plot as specified in the allotment
letter. Secondly, the allotment letter gave two options to the allottee for
payment of annual lease rent. The first option available to the allottee was
to pay yearly lease rent throughout the subsistence of the lease, subject to
enhancement after every ten years, provided that such enhancement would
not exceed 50% of the lease rent previously fixed. The second option was
to pay @ 11 years lease rent (Rs. 5,56,700/- * 11 times = Rs. 61,23,700/-)
in one go at the time of the execution of the lease deed.
It is significant to note that the allotment letter does not mention
any other condition with regard to payment of lease rent. It is noteworthy
that the allotment letter does not mention the office orders dated
13.10.1998 and 27.05.2000, relied upon by the Authority with regard to
payment of annual lease rent.
22. Subsequently, possession of the plot was handed over to the
petitioner on 08.01.2002, and thereafter, the lease deed was executed
between the parties on 28.02.2002. The lease deed also contains the
installments due from the petitioner with regard to the total consideration
of the plot and the agreed lease rent. The lease rent payable as per the lease
deed is given in clause II (a), which is reproduced below:
“a) Yielding and paying therefore yearly in advance during the
said term unto the lessor in the month of September for each year
the yearly lease rent indicated below :-

(12)
Writ C No. 6524 of 2008
1% of the total premium for the first 10 years, and after 10 years,
the lease rent may be enhanced by the Authority from time to time
whenever the Authority deems necessary. This extent of
enhancement shall not be called in question by the lessee. In case
of default in payment of advance lease rent, the interest @ 18%
per annum compounded at every half year on the overdue amount
shall also be payable. The lessee may exercise the option for
depositing a lump sum one-time lease rent equivalent to 11 times
the present amount of lease rent.”
Thus, the lease deed also contained the condition with regard to
payment of one-time lease rent calculated @ 1% of the total premium of
the plot.
23. The lease deed also contained a clause which clearly stated that
the lessee had made full payment of plot premium, interest and one-time
lease rent (emphasis supplied). Clause III (a) of the lease deed is
reproduced below:
“III…….
(a) The lease Deed of the plot has been executed, and the Lessee
has made full payment of the plot premium, interest and one-
time lease rent.”
Thus, the lease deed contains a categorical admission by the Authority that
the one-time lease rent has been paid in full.
24. The petitioner deposited Rs. 5,56,700/- on 08.01.2002 and
thereafter made a deposit of Rs. 55,67,000/- on 21.02.2002. Prior to
execution of the lease deed dated 28.02.2002, the petitioner had deposited
an aggregate amount of Rs. 61,23,700/-, which exactly corresponds to
eleven times the yearly lease rent payable under the allotment conditions.
The total amount on one-time lease rent as per the Authority is also Rs.
61,23,700/- but the Authority in reply has contended that the deposit on
08.01.2002 was towards yearly lease rent and cannot be adjusted towards
one-time lease rent deposit. The amount deposited on 21.02.2002 for an

(13)
Writ C No. 6524 of 2008
amount of Rs. 55,67,000 was only 10 time of the annual lease rent and
therefore did not constitute the one-time lease rent payment.
25. The allotment letter executed between the parties contained a
specific condition with regard to payment of lease rent. The allottee either
had the option of making yearly lease rent or could make a one-time lease
rent payment equivalent to 11 times the yearly rent. It is well settled
position of law that the contract has to be read as a whole, and there can
be no deviation from the terms of the concluded contract. Since the
payment was to be done under the conditions mentioned in the allotment
letter, including the lease rent, the conditions mentioned in the allotment
letter would be binding upon the parties. The Authority has also not
averred that the terms of the allotment letter are not binding.
26. The principal question that therefore arises is whether the payment
made on two different dates can be treated as a one-time lease rent
payment or not? Clause 3 of the allotment letter does not specify that a
lump sum payment has to be made before availing the one-time lease rent
option. The allotment letter is silent in this regard. However, when the
lease deed was executed on 28.02.2002, the lease deed specifically
mentioned in Clause III (a) that one-time lease rent has been paid in full.
This clause of the lease deed has not been disputed by the Authority in any
of its pleadings. Since the lease deed is a concluded contract between the
parties and the allotment has never been rescinded for any violation of the
lease deed, therefore, a conclusion can be drawn that the Authority was
satisfied that the one-time lease rent stood paid at the time of execution of
1
the lease deed. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harchand Rai
Chandan Lal, the Supreme Court held that:
“14. Therefore, it is settled law that the terms of the contract have to be
strictly read and the natural meaning given to it. No outside aid should be
sought unless the meaning is ambiguous.”
1 (2004) 8 SCC 644

(14)
Writ C No. 6524 of 2008
2
In Nabha Power Vs. Punjab SPCL, the Supreme Court, while dealing
with contractual terms clear sounded a word of caution that implied terms
should not be read in the terms of the contract, and a contract should be
read as it reads, as per its express terms. The Supreme Court held that:
“72. We may, however, in the end, extend a word of caution. It should certainly
not be an endeavour of commercial courts to look to the implied terms of a
contract. In the current day and age, making of contracts is a matter of high
technical expertise, with legal brains from all sides involved in the process of
drafting a contract. It is even preceded by opportunities of seeking
clarifications and doubts so that the parties know what they are getting into.
Thus, normally, a contract should be read as it reads, as per its express terms.
The implied terms are a concept which is necessitated only when the Penta test
referred to aforesaid comes into play. There has to be a strict necessity for it.
In the present case, we have really only read the contract in the manner it reads.
We have not really read into it any "implied term", but from the collection of
clauses, we come to a conclusion as to what the contract says. The formula for
energy charges, to our mind, was quite clear. We have only expounded it in
accordance with its natural grammatical contour, keeping in mind the nature of
the contract.”
In the present case, the terms of the concluded contract are clear.
The allottee had the option to pay one-time lease rent before the execution
of the lease deed. The terms did not specify a lump sum lease rent, and the
other clauses of the allotment letter, as well as the lease deed, do not imply
such a condition. Therefore, on plain reading of the contract, the one-time
lease rent had to be deposited before the execution of the lease deed, which
was done by the petitioner.
27. The issue of whether the one-time lease rent stood deposited can
also be examined from another angle. In the special camp held between
20.02.2006 and 25.02.2006 by the Authority for clearing dues, the
petitioner, with the intention to get the no dues certificate, participated
with all the records. Ultimately, a letter dated 13.03.2006 came to be
issued in favour of the petitioner stating that Rs. 2,552/- remained to be
paid by the petitioner. It would be relevant to note that before this letter,
the Authority submits that another demand letter dated 09.01.2004 for Rs.
2 (2008) 1 SCC 1

(15)
Writ C No. 6524 of 2008
17,62,805/- was issued to the petitioner but receipt of the same has
categorically been denied by the petitioner. Even otherwise, the Authority
did not pursue the said letter as the records do not indicate that any follow
up was made on the demand made by the Authority. The demand of Rs.
2,552/- was deposited by the petitioner on 27.02.2006. This letter is not
disputed by the Authority; therefore, the conclusion that can be drawn is
that the Authority had settled the one-time lease rent issue by issuing the
letter dated 13.03.2006.
28. Apart from the aforesaid circumstance, another indicator of
payment of one-time lease rent by the petitioner is the calculations
appended in the reply dated 26.12.2006 to RTI Application No. 912 of the
petitioner. In the said calculations, the Authority has calculated that the
balance amount of Rs. 1,39,175/- remained to be paid, which was the lease
rent for the period of 08.01.2002 to 31.03.2002 (wrongly mentioned as
31.03.2003 in the calculation). Even in the supplementary counter
affidavit, the Authority has accepted the same. The calculation, which
incidentally has been approved by the Chief Accounts and Finance Officer
of the Authority, is reproduced below:
“Lease rent will commence from 08.01.2002
Lease rent – 08.01.2002 →31.01.2003 (3 months)
= 5,56,69,345.0 X 1/100 X 3/12
= 556693 X 3/12
= 5,56,700 X 3/12
= 1,39,175/-
Due as on 08.01.2002 = 1,39,175/-
Paid = 5,56,700/- Balance on 08.01.2002
= (-) 4,17,525
Due on Feb → Nill: Balance on Feb (-) 4,17,525/-
One-time Due = 5,56,700 X 11 = 61,23,700 – 4,17,525
= 57,06,175/-
Paid → 55,67,000/- Balance 1,39,175/-”

(16)
Writ C No. 6524 of 2008
Thus, if the remaining balance on 26.12.2006 was Rs. 1,39,175/-
which is accepted by the Authority to be the lease rent due from
08.01.2002 to 31.03.2002, then the payment of Rs. 5,56,700 on
08.01.2002 and payment of Rs. 55,67,000/- on 21.02.2002 (Rs. 5,56,700
+ Rs. 55,67,000/- = Rs. 61,23,700/-), which is equivalent to 11 times the
lease rent, would be considered as irrefutable evidence that the entire one-
time lease rent had been paid by the petitioner before the execution of the
lease deed. Thus, nothing remained to be paid by the petitioner towards
the one-time lease rent. However, a sum of Rs. 1,39,175/- remained to be
paid by the petitioner as lease rent for the period of 08.01.2002 to
31.03.2002. Even though the lease deed in clause III (g) specifically
mentions that the date of execution of the lease deed shall be treated as the
date of handing over possession, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner
was put in possession on 08.01.2002. Thus, there is no error in the lease
rent calculation for the period of 08.01.2002 to 31.03.2002, and the
petitioner is bound to pay the same.
29. Keeping in mind the above findings, we are of the considered
view that the petitioner had deposited the one-time lease rent before the
execution of the lease deed. Furthermore, the petitioner is bound to pay
the lease rent calculated for the period of 08.01.2002 to 31.03.2002, as the
petitioner was put in possession on 08.01.2002.
30. The Authority, in their submissions, had relied upon certain
calculations which were stated in the supplementary counter affidavit. The
calculations were based on the fact that the petitioner had only deposited
one year’s lease rent on 08.01.2002 and thereafter deposited 10 years'
lease rent on 21.02.2002. As 11 years lease rent was not deposited
therefore the Authority, by resolution, decided to accept the earlier
payment as a one-time settlement and demand the rest of the balance. This
balance has been justified to be Rs. 29,22,675/- as was initially intimated
to the petitioner by letters dated 24.04.2006 and 13.06.2006. However, in
both the demand letters, only the demand is stated without stating the

(17)
Writ C No. 6524 of 2008
actual calculation as to how the figure was arrived at. It goes without
saying that the Authority is expected to deal with fairness and non-
arbitrariness as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Principles of good administration would require that the decisions of the
Authority must withstand the test of consistency, transparency and
predictability to avoid of being termed as arbitrary and violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India. In the considered view of this Court, the
demand and the subsequent calculations to justify the demand are
fallacious. The reason being that the said demand was raised without
considering the clause in the lease deed which stated that one-time lease
rent was paid in full and the calculations showing the balance payment
which was approved by the Chief Accounts and Finance Officer in the RTI
reply. The Authority has also admitted that a balance of Rs. 1,39,175/- was
due towards lease rent for a period of 08.01.2002 to 31.03.2002, leading
to the conclusion that the two deposits were towards one-time lease rent.
31. As to the applicability of the Office orders dated 17.10.1998 and
27.05.2000, suffice to say that such orders cannot override the specific
terms of the concluded contract executed between the parties. The
allotment letter and the lease deed contains no reference to such office
orders, and therefore, they cannot be impliedly or otherwise be included
in the contract terms.
32. Once this Court is of the view that one-time lease rent stood
deposited before the execution of the lease deed, the question that remains
to be answered is whether the petitioner is entitled to any refund of Rs.
29,22,675/- deposited by the petitioner on 28.02.2006. As already held
above, the one-time lease rent stood deposited, but the petitioner was
liable to pay the lease rent from 08.01.2002 till 31.03.2002, as the
petitioner was put in possession from 08.01.2002. Therefore, the amount
of Rs. 1,39,175/- as rent towards the period of 08.01.2002 till 31.03.2002
is liable to be deducted from the amount of Rs. 29,22,675/-. Consequently,
the petitioner would be entitled to a refund after adjusting the amount of

(18)
Writ C No. 6524 of 2008
lease rent of Rs. 1,39,175/- from Rs. 29,22,675/- already deposited by the
petitioner.
ANSWERS TO THE POINTS OF DETERMINATION :
33. Regarding issue no. 1 as to whether the amounts deposited by the
petitioner on 08.01.2002 (Rs. 5,56,700/-) and 21.02.2001 (Rs.
55,67,000/-) can be treated as a one-time lease rent deposit or not, the
issue is answered in the affirmative, holding that the petitioner had
deposited the entire one-time lease rent before the execution of the lease
deed.
34. Regarding Issue no. 2 as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any
refund with regard to the Rs. 29,22,675/- deposited by the petitioner on
28.06.2006, the issue is answered in the affirmative, holding that the
petitioner is entitled to a partial refund after deducting the lease rent of Rs.
1,39,175/- for a period of 08.01.2002 to 31.03.2002.
CONCLUSIONS:
35. In light of the findings and the observations given above, the writ
petition is partially allowed with regard to the prayer of refund of Rs.
29,22,675/- deposited by the petitioner. The net amount to be refunded
shall be calculated in terms of the findings given above, and the balance
amount shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from
today. In case of failure to pay the same within three months, an interest
of 6% on the balance amount to be refunded shall be added till the date of
actual payment. There shall be no order as to cost.
(Kunal Ravi Singh, J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.)
May 25, 2026
Sumit S
Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad