Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
INDERJ
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/01/1996
BENCH:
KIRPAL B.N. (J)
BENCH:
KIRPAL B.N. (J)
VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (7) 339 JT 1996 (1) 573
1996 SCALE (1)469
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
KIRPAL.J.
Leave granted
In this appeal, by special leave, there is challenge to
two judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. the first
being judgment dated 14.11.1994 whereby the respondent’s
writ petition was allowed and the appellant was directed to
allot a plot of land measuring half acre and the second
judgment is dated 9.8.1995 whereby the Review Application
filed by the appellant herein, was dismissed.
The relevant facts are that the appellant is a
Government company which is, inter alia, engaged in carrying
out activities towards the advancement of industrial
development in the State of Haryana. In the course of its
activities, in 1983 it invited applications for allotment of
certain plots of land to set up industrial units in Gurgaon.
The respondent applied for an industrial plot in Phase-IV,
Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon for setting up a unit to manufacture
reinforced concrete cement pipe and assessories. Allotment
of plot of one acre in favour of the respondent was approved
and he was requested to deposit 15% of the cost of land vide
letter dated 27.10.1983. On the said 15% having been
deposited by the respondent, he was offered an industrial
plot No. 359 measuring one acre in Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV,
Gurgaon at the tentative rate of Rs. 120/- per sq. meter. A
provisional letter of allotment dated 27.12.1984 was issued
and it was made clear therein that the respondent was
required to fulfil certain pre-requisites connected with the
implementation of the proposed project before the final
allotment could be made in his favour. These pre-requisites
were to be completed within 120 days of the date of
allotment. This letter further stipulated that the
provisional letter of allotment will not give any legal
right of allotment unless the final allotment letter is
issued.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
It is the case of the appellant that the respondent
neither complied with the formalities, as contemplated by
the aforesaid letter dated 27.12.1984, within the time
schedule nor deposited any further amount with the
appellant. According to the appellant, for administrative
reasons the industrial plot No. 359 which had been allotted
to the respondent was changed to two plots measuring half
acres each and renumbered as plot Nos. 374-375. Another
provisional letter of allotment dated 5.11.1986 was written
to the respondent stating therein that it had been decided
to offer him industrial plot Nos. 374-375 measuring one acre
at the tentative rate of Rs. 120-60 per Sq. yard. But,
before the allotment was issued in his favour, he was
required to comply with certain pre-requisites enumerated in
the said letter of allotment which were connected with the
implementation of the respondent’s proposed project. These
pre-requisites included the unit being registered with the
appropriate authority, drawing of the unit approved,
building and machinery being sanctioned and list of plant
and machinery to be installed at the unit. These pre-
requisite formalities were required to be completed within
120 days of the said letter dated 5.11.1986 and it was
stipulated that if this was nor done within the specified
time, then the provisional letter of allotment shall be
treated as having been withdrawn, unless its validity was
extended in writing by the Corporation. It was again
mentioned in the letter dated 5.11.1986 that the said letter
shall not give the respondent any legal right for allotment
unless the final allotment is issued.
Soon after the despatch of the letter dated 5.11.1986,
the appellant learnt that the aforesaid plot Nos. 374-375
were not available and had been wrongly offered to the
respondent. The respondent was, accordingly, informed vide
letter dated 10.11.1986 that the plot Nos. 374-375 had been
wrongly mentioned in the provisional letter of allotment
dated 5.11.1986 and that the respondent’s case for allotment
of alternative plot of one acre had been considered and
approved but the plot number would be intimated shortly.
Thereafter, it seems that discussion took place between the
appellant and the respondent regarding the allotment of one
acre plot. The case of the appellant is that a mutual
agreement was arrived at as a result of which letter dated
5.1.1989 was written by the appellant to the respondent
whereby the respondent was offered a half acre plot in Udyog
Vihar, Phase-IV at the old rate of Rs. 120/- per sq. meter.
It was further stated in this letter that with this offer of
half acre of plot at Rs. 120/- per sq. meter "the present
case will be treated as closed thereafter" and request for
additional space would be considered on submission of a
fresh application, but the rate of land will be at the rate
prevailing at that time. The respondent was requested to
confirm the acceptance of an area of 2000 sq. meters for the
proposed project and this acceptance was required to be
given within 15 days of the issue of the said letter. Vide
letter dated 14.1.1989 the respondent conveyed his
acceptance of half acre plot and observed as follows:
"However, I accept 1/2 acre plot as
desired by you in the letter dated
5.1.1989 mentioned above at the original
rates, but reserve the right to claim
further 1/2 acre plot it may be
mentioned that I have deposited the
required money for 1 acre plot."
On the receipt of the aforesaid reply, a formal
provisional letter of allotment dated 24.2.1989 was issued
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
to the respondent whereby two industrial plot Nos. 1 & 2
measuring 1000 sq. meters each at Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV at
the tentative rate of Rs. 120 per sq. meter was proposed to
be allotted to the respondent. By this letter, the
respondent was again required to complete the pre-requisites
connected with the implementation of the respondent’s
project and he was also asked to convey his acceptance to
the conditions within 30 days. In this letter, it was
further stated as under:
"Reverting to your letter of 14th
January, 1989 we would like to clarify
here that this offer for 1/2 acre size
plot has been made in your favour as per
the concept you given to our Managing
Director during the course of discussion
on 3rd December and it will not be
possible to give you any more plot
against this application. However, you
are at liberty to apply for plot against
our further advertisement on new rates
and on terms and conditions prevalent at
that time and in that event your case
will be considered alongwith others on
merits.
You may please note that since the
plot has been offered to you at the old
rate of Rs. 120/- per sq. meter, the
corporation shall not be in a position
to accede to any of your request for
transfer of plot and that your are
required to implement your project
within one year from the date of issue
of allotment letter. In the end, we
remind you to complete the conditions
mentioned at (i) to (iii) and furnish us
proof thereof within the stipulated
period to enable us to issue the
allotment letter." (emphasis added)
In response to the aforesaid provisional letter of
allotment dated 24.2.1989, the respondent wrote a letter
dated 4.3.1989 in which it was stated as follows:
"Offer of half acre plot Nos. 1 & 2
measuring 1000 sq. meters each (total
2000 sq. meters) is acceptable. I am in
touch with the District Industries
Center, Divisional Town Planner and
Haryana Financial Corporation. I hope to
complete all the formalities very soon."
On the receipt of the aforesaid letter, a final letter
of allotment dated 6.7.1990 was issued to the respondent.
This was followed by the signing of an agreement between the
parties after which the possession of the said plots was
handed over to the respondent on 4.9.1990.
The respondent then filed a Writ Petition No. 5123 of
1994 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Basing his claim
on the earlier provisional allotment letter dated
27.12.1984, the respondent, inter alia, prayed that the
appellant herein should and ought to deliver the remaining
half acre of plot. The appellant herein contended that the
letter dated 27.12.1984 had been superseded and a fresh
agreement had been entered into between the parties after
the respondent herein had accepted 2000 sq. meters of land
which had been allotted to him. It was also stated that one
of the conditions of allotment vide letter dated 6.7.1990
was that the unit was to be set up within two years from the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
date of allotment put the respondent had even failed to
utilize the plots of land which had been handed over to him.
The High Court by its judgment dated 14.11.1994 came to
the conclusion that there was no reason shown by any
correspondence on record as to why the area of the plot
which was to be allotted to the respondent vide allotment
letter dated 24.12.1984 had been reduced. It did not accept
the contention of the appellant herein that while accepting
plot Nos. 1 & 2 measuring 1000 sq. meters each, the
respondent had given up his right for the remaining half
acre of land. The High Court, accordingly, directed the
appellant to allot the remaining half acre of plot within a
specified period.
Thereafter, Review Application No. 41 1995 was filed by
the appellant herein but the same was dismissed by judgment
dated 9.8.1995.
From the facts as narrated above, it appears that the
High Court erred in directing that a further plot of half
acre should be allotted to the respondent. The High Court
did not appreciate that the correspondence on record of the
case clearly shows that the respondent was stopped from
making the claim for a further area of half acre after head
accepted the allotment of plot Nos. 1 & 2 measuring 2000 sq.
meters in total. In the present case even though in the
letter dated 27.12.1984 the respondent had been offered a
plot of land measuring one acre yet by subsequent letter
dated 5.1.1989, a revised offer was made whereby he was
offered a plot measuring half acre at the old rate of Rs.
120/- per sq. meter as a special case. In this letter, it
was stated that while making this offer the case would be
considered as closed and the respondent was requested to
confirm the acceptance of the area of 2000 sq. meters. Vide
letter dated 14.1.1989, a conditional acceptance was
conveyed by the respondent whereby he had stated that he
accepted the half acre of plot but he reserve the right to
claim further half acre of plot of this, the appellant wrote
letter dated 24.2.1989 again stating that half acre of land
was offered to him and that he was clarified that this offer
was made in his favour as per the consent given by him to
the appellant’s Managing Director during the course of
discussion on 3.12.1990. It is in response to this letter
seeking the aforesaid clarification that the respondent
wrote the letter dated 4.3.1989 wherein he unconditionally
accepted the plot Nos. 1 and 2. It is only thereafter that
the formal allotment letter dated 6.7.1990 was issued to him
which was followed by a formal agreement and handing over
possession of the said plot Nos. 1 and 2 to the respondent.
There can be no manner of doubt that the appellant had
categorically stated that it was unable to offer the
respondent an area larger than half an acre and acceptance
of this was insisted upon and the same was given by the
respondent vide letter dated 4.3.1989. Had this
unconditional acceptance not been given, it would appear.
The appellant would not have made the allotment in favour of
respondent.
It is further to be borne in mind that the letter dated
27.12.1984, on which reliance is placed by the respondent
and on the basis of which the High Court had given relief,
it was stated that the said letter was only a provisional
letter of allotment and it was specifically mentioned
therein that the same shall not give you any legal right for
allotment unless a final allotment letter is issued". There
was, therefore, no final commitment to allot one acre of
land to the respondent and the High Court clearly
misconstrued the said provisional letter of allotment to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
mean as if the respondent had acquired a vested right to
obtain an allotment of one acre of land.
The respondent was not only stopped from claiming an
additional half acre of land but even the letter dated
27.12.1984 did not give the respondent any legal right to
insist upon the allotment of one acre of land because the
only letter of final allotment which was issued in favour of
the respondent, was the one dated 6.7.1990 whereby only half
acre of land was allotted and the said allotment was
accepted by the respondent without demure, till he chose to
file the Writ Petition four years thereafter.
In view of the above, the appellant was not liable to
allot an additional half acre of land to the respondent to
whom plot Nos. 1 & 2 at Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon
measuring 2000 sq. meters had already been validly allotted.
For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed and
the judgments of the High Court dated 14.11.1994 in C.W.P.
No. 5123/1994 and dated 18.8.1995 in Review Petition No. 41
of 1995 are set aside, the result of which would be that the
Writ Petition filed by the respondent before the High Court
would stand dismissed Parties to bear their own costs.