New Okhla Industrial Development … vs 24 Oranges Lab Llp on 21 September, 2021


Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Supreme Court of India

New Okhla Industrial Development … vs 24 Oranges Lab Llp on 21 September, 2021

Author: M.R. Shah

Bench: M.R. Shah, A.S. Bopanna

                                                       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)




                                               JUDGMENT

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

petitioners by which the High Court has disposed of the said
Natarajan
Date: 2021.09.21
16:58:18 IST
Reason:

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



Source link