Holding

The Court dismissed the contempt petitions, held NOIDA not in contempt, and modified the second option, setting a 7% interest rate and detailed resale and refund procedures.

Summary

The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) allotted hotel plots for the 2010 Commonwealth Games, which were later cancelled and the matter litigated. The Supreme Court, in its 2011 judgment, allowed the allottees to continue their leases by paying a higher premium of Rs.70,000 per square metre. The petitioners subsequently paid the premium but the Authority failed to execute a supplementary lease deed, leading to contempt petitions. The Court examined whether NOIDA was in contempt and what remedial measures were appropriate, ultimately rejecting the contempt claims and modifying the earlier "second option" for resolution. It directed that the plots be resold via e‑bids, refunds be made from any excess over Rs.1,05,000 per sq m, and interest on premium refunds be set at 7% per annum, while clarifying that stamp duty is payable to the State Government and not refundable by NOIDA.

Issues considered

Whether NOIDA is in contempt for not executing the supplementary lease deed as ordered by the Supreme Court.
What is the appropriate remedy for the parties – execution of the lease or resumption and refund of amounts?
What interest rate should apply to refunds of premium paid by the allottees?
Whether stamp duty paid to the State Government can be refunded by NOIDA.
Whether the "second option" for resale of plots and refund is legally valid and what its modalities should be.

Legislation cited

U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973s. 12, s. 41(3)

Subjects

ContemptLease deedLand allotmentHotel plotsCommonwealth GamesNOIDARefundInterest rateResumptionPublic interestUrban planning

Judgment

238 [2021]
SUPREME COURT 2 S.C.R. 238
REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A HAMPSHIRE HOTELS AND RESORTS (NOIDA) PVT. LTD.
v.
RITU MAHESHWARI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(NOIDA)
B
(Contempt Petition (Civil) No.413 of 2019)
in
(Civil Appeal No.4564 of 2008)
MARCH 09, 2021
C
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDU MALHOTRA AND
KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Contempt – Allotment of hotel sites by New Okhla Industrial
Development Authority (NOIDA) to various allottees to cater to the
demand for hotels around Commonwealth Games, 2010 – Allotments
D
eventually cancelled – Challenged by allottees – Writ petitions
allowed, cancellation order set aside – High Court remanded the
matter for taking fresh decision – Order of remand challenged by
the allottees by filing Special Leave Petitions – By interim order, the
State Government was permitted to give hearing to the concerned
E allottees and pass a reasoned order – State Government decided to
cancel the allotments made by NOIDA – Challenged in pending
SLPs– By judgment dtd. 05.07.11, Supreme Court inter alia found
that the lease given to the allottees were legal and valid; allottees
were given option to continue their respective leases by paying higher
premium or to withdraw if unwilling to continue – Petitioners herein
F
exercised the option to continue their respective leases by paying
the premium– Contempt petitions filed alleging that despite such
deposits no supplementary deed was executed – Held: Plots were
meant for five-star and three-star hotels which were to come up
well-in-time to cater to the demand for hotels around Commonwealth
G Games, 2010 – It has been more than 10 years since the Games got
over but no development on these plots has occurred – Present status
is nothing but a stalemate in which valuable assets of a public
authority are locked completely – Two options were suggested vide
order of this Court dtd.05.09.19 to resolve the disputes between the
parties – Petitioners are willing to exercise the second option
H
238
HAMPSHIRE HOTELS AND RESORTS (NOIDA) PVT. LTD. v. RITU 239
MAHESHWARI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

contemplating sale of the plots after resumption by NOIDA, and A
payment to them from and out of the sale proceeds – Modalities
suggested by the second option could yield results favourable to
both sides, and at the same time would take care of public interest
as well – Second Option given in the Order dated 05.09.2019
modified – U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
B
Disposing of the Contempt Petitions, the Court
HELD : 1.1 Two options were suggested in the Order dated
05.09.2019. those options were:-
“All the contempt petitioners-allottees shall pay up all the
amounts that are due alongwith the accrued interest on or before C
31.12.2019, whereafter, NOIDA shall execute a supplementary
lease deed in favour of the contempt petitioners-allottees.
OR
The plots in question which were allotted to the contempt D
petitioners-allottees be resumed by NOIDA and put up for fresh
auction, and from and out of the proceeds the money deposited
by each of the contempt petitioners-allottees be returned by the
NOIDA along with interest @ 11% p.a.” [Para 9][253-H;
254-A-C]
E
1.2 The facts set out in paragraphs of the Judgment dated
05.07.2011 indicate that the plots in the instant case were meant
for five-star and three-star hotels which were to come up well-in-
time to cater to the demand for hotels around Commonwealth
Games, 2010. It has been more than 10 years since the Games
got over but no development on these plots has occurred. The F
tussle is going on between the Petitioners on one side who submit
that because of indifferent and recalcitrant attitude on part of the
authorities, they could not enter into any arrangement for financial
accommodation, and as such, no development could be
undertaken; while on the other hand, the submission on part of
G
NOIDA is that unless the payment of premium in entirety was
made, no lease could be executed. Each side is blaming the other
and the resultant effect is that the properties are lying
undeveloped, no payment of premium is forthcoming and the
public interest is not getting subserved. It was in this background
H
240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A that the Second Option was suggested so that the Petitioners
are allowed to withdraw themselves from the arrangement and,
at the same time, the interest of NOIDA is also well secured.
Submissions were advanced on the basis of what weighed with
this Court when the Judgment dated 05.07.2011 was passed,
where this Court had given the facility of withdrawal from the
B
arrangement to such of the allottees who were unwilling to
continue. In that case, the concerned allottees were allowed to
withdraw all the amounts including the stamp duty and registration
charges along with interest @ 18% per annum. This aspect of
the matter has been pressed into service on behalf of the
C Petitioners to submit that they were willing to forego the amounts
indicated at Sl. Nos. 1, 5 and 6 of the illustrative chart quoted in
the Order dated 17.09.2019 and as such the offer on part of NOIDA
to refund the deposited amounts, after deducting 30% of the
premium amount without payment of any interest, would not be
fair, if the current prices of the lands in the area were to be taken
D
into account. It was also submitted that the fault actually lies with
NOIDA in not permitting the Petitioners to enter into financial
accommodation, and thus no development could take place. These
submissions are undoubtedly refuted by the learned counsel for
NOIDA. The present status is nothing but a stalemate in which
E valuable assets of a public authority are locked completely. The
public interest is neither getting subserved, nor is NOIDA
getting instalments towards premium on time. This Court asked
the learned counsel for NOIDA if any proceedings for resumption
of land were undertaken, to which the response was in the
negative. In this situation, the modalities suggested by the Second
F
Option could yield results which would be favourable to both
sides, and at the same time would take care of public interest as
well. However, considering the price index which is available
through the bid as described in the communication dated
21.10.2019, and keeping the interest of NOIDA in forefront, the
G modalities stated hereafter, will take care of public interest and
competing claims of both sides. Before coming to the modalities,
certain aspects need to be clarified including what amounts the
Petitioners would be entitled to:-

H
HAMPSHIRE HOTELS AND RESORTS (NOIDA) PVT. LTD. v. RITU 241
MAHESHWARI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

A] From the illustrative chart, which was quoted in the A
Order dated 17.09.2019, the claims with regard to amounts
mentioned against Sl. Nos.1, 5 and 6 were given up by the
Petitioners.
B] As regards stamp duty, the stand of NOIDA is that the
money was not paid to NOIDA but was paid to the State B
Government, and, therefore, NOIDA cannot be made to refund
the amount towards stamp duty. Since the State Government is
not party to the present matter, no direction in that behalf can be
issued, and the matter shall have to be left to the State
Government to consider whether there could be refund of stamp
duty either in full, or in part. C

C] Rest of the amounts comprise of two types of payments:
a) towards instalments of premium; and b) towards payment of
lease rent. [Paras 17-19][259-B-H; 260-A-F]
1.3 As regards lease rent, it is evident from the chart in the D
Order dated 17.09.2019 that an amount of Rs.44,84,000/- was
paid by the Petitioner by way of lease rent on 06.03.2007 and
one-time lease rent amounting to Rs.5,37,24,000/- was paid on
11.05.2007. One-time lease rent constitutes payment for the
entirety of the period of lease covered by the document.
Therefore, that component of the amount which represents the E
remainder period after the plot is sold in terms of this Order,
ought not to be charged by NOIDA from the Petitioners. If the
plot is re-sold, the new allottee, in any case, will be paying in
respect of such remainder period under a fresh lease executed
in his favour. The Petitioners shall, therefore, be entitled to refund F
of that component of amount of one-time lease rent which
proportionately represents the remainder period after the plots
in question are sold in terms of this Order. They shall not,
however, be entitled to any interest on such component. The
amount of interest on refund of the amounts paid towards premium
that the Petitioners would be entitled to was subject matter of G
discussion on the earlier occasion. By order dated 17.09.2019 it
was found that the appropriate rate of interest could be 7% per
annum. The Petitioners would, therefore, be entitled to 7% annual

H
242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A interest on the amounts deposited by them towards premium from
time to time. These amounts payable towards interest shall be
calculated upto 30.04.2021 and shall stand frozen as on that date.
[Paras 20, 21][260-G-H; 261-A-D]
1.4 In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the revised
B Second Option shall be as under:-
A) The concerned plots allotted to the Petitioners be sold
by NOIDA by inviting E-bids or by auction after advertising the
same as was done in the Scheme No.2019-20 (Commercial Builder
Plot-I)
C B) If the price quoted in such E-bid for each of the
concerned plots is more than one and a half times of the price at
which the arrangement with the Petitioners was arrived at; that
is to say, more than Rs.1,05,000 per sq. metre, the Petitioners
be returned the amounts deposited towards premium in each case.
D However, in case there is shortfall as against the rate of
Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre, the shortfall shall be made good by
the Petitioners and to that extent the amount payable to the
Petitioners towards refund of amount paid towards premium shall
stand reduced.

E C) Insofar as refund of amounts towards remainder part of
the lease rent and the component of interest payable to each of the
Petitioners are concerned, said amounts shall be made over only
if the price received by NOIDA in fresh sale of said plots in terms
of this Order is in excess of Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre and only
to the extent of excess beyond Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre.
F
D) The Petitioners shall, thus, first be made over the
component representing the amount paid by them towards
premium in the manner as stated above. It is only if the rate
fetched in such re-sale is greater than Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre
that the Petitioners shall be paid amounts towards the remainder
G part of the lease rent and component of interest payable, as stated
hereinabove; subject always to the requirement that these
amounts are paid from the amounts representing the excess
above the base price of Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre; which will

H
HAMPSHIRE HOTELS AND RESORTS (NOIDA) PVT. LTD. v. RITU 243
MAHESHWARI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

ensure that NOIDA will always get a base rate of Rs.1,05,000/- A
per sq. metre for the concerned plot in such re-sale. If the excess
amount beyond Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre is not sufficient to
absorb the amounts payable to the Petitioners towards component
of lease rent and the interest; their entitlement shall stand
reduced to that extent. It is also made clear that if the difference
B
between the base price of Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre and the
price fetched in the re-sale is greater than what would be payable
towards component of lease rent and interest, NOIDA alone shall
be entitled to such excess amount.
E] By way of illustration:-
C
(a) If the price quoted in E-bid or auction for a plot of 20,000
sq. metre is at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per sq. metre, the shortfall
will be Rs.5,000/- x 20,000/- (extent of plot) = Rs.10 Crores. Thus,
Rs.10 Crores shall be deducted from the deposited amount
towards premium and the balance shall be refunded. Since the
price quoted in E – bid or auction is less than Rs.1,05,000/- per D
sq. metre, nothing shall be payable towards remainder part of
the lease rent and the component of interest.
(b) If the price quoted in E – bid or auction is at the rate of
Rs.1,20,000/- per sq. metre, the amount to be received by NOIDA
beyond the level of Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre for the same plot E
shall be Rs.15,000/- x 20,000/- (extent of plot) = Rs.30 Crores.
As the price quoted is more than Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre:-
(i) The entire amount deposited towards premium shall
be refunded by NOIDA; and
F
(ii) So much of the amount representing remainder part
of the lease rent and component of interest which can
be assorbed from and out of Rs.30 Crores shall be
refunded but not beyond Rs.30 Crores.
(iii) Thus, if the amount representing remainder part of
G
the lease rent and the component of interest is greater
than Rs.30 Crores, the entitlement shall be only upto
Rs.30 Crores and not in excess thereof. However, if
such amount payable towards these two heads is less

H
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A than Rs.30 Crores, the amount shall be paid in full
and the balance shall be retained by NOIDA.
(F) In the process, NOIDA will always get minimum of
Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre in such re-sale.
G] After the concerned plots are sold in auction and
B appropriate documents are executed in favour of the new
allottees, the concerned Petitioners shall be entitled to apply to
the State Government for refund of amounts paid by them towards
Stamp Duty. Such applications shall be considered by the State
Government in accordance with the extant policy and in
C accordance with law.
The modality devised above will ensure that as against the
promised rate of Rs.70,000 per sq. metre, which premium is also
in arrears in the present cases, NOIDA shall get much more than
that towards price of land and will also stand to gain considerably.
Accordingly, in the process, not only will the public interest stand
D
subserved, but the projects which have run into stalemate, will
also come out of difficulties. The Second Option given in the Order
dated 05.09.2019 shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent.
Further directions issued. [Paras 22-24][261-D-H; 262-A-H;
263-A-H]
E ITC Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.(2011) 7
SCC 493 : [2011] 7 SCR 66 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2011] 7 SCR 66 referred to Para 1
F INHERENT JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (C) No. 413
of 2019 in Civil Appeal No. 4564 of 2008.
Petition filed for disobedience of the judgment and order dated
05.07.2011 passed by this court in Civil Appeal No. 4564 of 2008 and
Civil Appeal Nos.4570 of 2008, 4968 of 2008, 4566 of 2008, 4565 of
2008, 4571 of 2008, 4569 of 2008
G
With
Contempt Petition (Civil) No.416 of 2019 in Civil Appeal No.4570
of 2008, Contempt Petition (Civil) No.415 of 2019 in Civil Appeal No.4968
of 2008, Contempt Petition (Civil) No.414 of 2019 in Civil Appeal No.4566
H of 2008, Contempt Petition (Civil) No.645 of 2019 in Civil Appeal No.4565
HAMPSHIRE HOTELS AND RESORTS (NOIDA) PVT. LTD. v. RITU 245
MAHESHWARI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

of 2008, Contempt Petition (Civil) No.646 of 2019 in Civil Appeal No.4571 A
of 2008, Contempt Petition (Civil) No.647 of 2019 in Civil Appeal No.4569
of 2008.
Mukul Rohatagi, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Puri, Anuj P. Agarwala, Sarthak
Gupta, Hardeep Singh, Pramod B. Agarwala, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Ravindra Kumar, Adv. for the Contemnor. B

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. These Contempt Petitions allege infraction on part of NOIDA,
the Respondent-Authority in not obeying the directions issued by this C
Court in its Judgment and Order dated 05.07.2011 in Civil Appeal No.4564
of 20081 and all other connected matters; and seek issuance of directions
to NOIDA to execute a fresh lease deed/supplementary lease deed as
detailed in the aforesaid Judgment and Order dated 05.07.2011 and for
rescheduling of the balance land premium/instalments. D
2. The basic facts in the backdrop of which the present
proceedings have arisen, were set out in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9
of the Judgment dated 05.07.2011 as under:-
“3. At the 135th meeting of the Board of Directors/Members of
NOIDA Authority (for short ‘NOIDA Board’) held on 5.6.2006, E
the said State Policy dated 22.5.2006 to attract more capital
investment in tourism/hotel industry was considered. The NOIDA
Board resolved to implement the said policy in the areas falling
within its jurisdiction and apply the rates applicable to its Industrial
area (Phase I) to the plots to be allotted to the hotel industry. The F
rate referred was the reserve rate of Rs.7400/- per sq.m.
applicable to Industrial Area (Phase I) plots, fixed by the NOIDA
Board at its meeting held on 20.3.2006.
4. The resolution also mentioned that the implementation of the
said policy should ensure construction of sufficient hotels before
G
the Commonwealth Games to be held in Delhi, which were
scheduled to commence in October, 2010. Having regard to the
importance of the matter, the Principal Secretary, Tourism, the
Commissioner, Meerut Circle and the Director of Industries of
the U.P. Government, attended the said meeting as special invitees.
1
(2011) 7 SCC 493 (ITC Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.) H
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A 5. At a meeting held by the Circle Commissioner, Meerut on
2.7.2006 with officials of NOIDA Authority, he communicated
the direction that construction of Hotels should be completed before
the commencement of the Commonwealth Games. At the said
meeting the following 14 plots were identified as being suitable
for allotment as hotels/plots: (a) six plots each measuring 40000
B
square metre for 5 star hotels in Sectors 96, 97 and 98; (b) five
plots each measuring 20000 square metre for 4 star hotels in
Sectors 72, 101, 105, 124 and 135; and (c) three plots for 3 star
hotels (measuring 20000, 20000 & 10000 square metre) in Sectors
62, 63, and 142.
C 6. In view of the Government’s Policy dated 22.5.2006 and the
decisions taken at the meeting chaired by the Commissioner,
Meerut Circle on 6.7.2006, the NOIDA Board took the following
decisions at its 136th meeting held on 14.7.2006 :
(i) It approved the proposal for making provision for hotels in
D reserved commercial area – Zone C 3 (as hotels had not
been permitted in commercial areas C-1 and C-2 of the
master plan reserved for wholesale and retail activities and
as there was demand for hotels due to Commonwealth
Games 2010) and directed inclusion thereof in the approved
E proposed NOIDA Master Plan 2021 and reference to the
State Government for its approval.
(ii) It decided to launch the Hotel Plot Allotment Scheme and
authorized the CEO to finalise the terms and conditions for
allotment, so as to ensure construction of hotels by the
F allottees before the commencement of the Commonwealth
Games.
In pursuance of the said decision, NOIDA Authority sent a
communication dated 20.7.2006 to the State Government seeking
approval of its decision to make a provision for hotels in commercial
G areas under Zone 3 and inclusion of it in NOIDA Master Plan,
2021.
7. The Secretary, Sports & Youth Affairs, Government of India,
held meetings with NOIDA Authority officials on 28.7.2006 and
22.8.2006 in connection with preparations for Commonwealth
H
HAMPSHIRE HOTELS AND RESORTS (NOIDA) PVT. LTD. v. RITU 247
MAHESHWARI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

Games scheduled in October, 2010. At those meetings, the A
Secretary, Sports & Youth Affairs stressed the Government of
India’s request for earmarking 25 hotel plots in NOIDA. Therefore
it was decided to reduce the area of 5 star hotels to 24000 square
metre (instead of 40,000 square metre earlier proposed), the area
of 4 star hotels to 12500 square metre (instead of 20000 square
B
metre) and the area of 3 star Hotels to 7500 square metre (instead
of 10000 square metre) and thereby convert the 14 plots into 25
plots made up of 10 plots for 5 star hotels, 5 plots for 4 star hotels
and 10 plots for 3 star hotels.
8. At the meeting held on 28.8.2006 under the chairmanship of
the Circle Commissioner, Meerut, the said decision to increase C
the number of plots for hotels from 14 to 25 by reducing the plot
measurements, in the following manner:
(i) Ten plots for 3 star hotels – (area 7500 square metre each)
Plot Nos. SDC/H1 and SDC/H2 in sector 62, plot Nos.A-155/ D
B and A-155/C in sector 63, plot No. SDC/H 2 in sector 72,
plot No.124A/2 in sector 124, plot No.SDC/H-2 in sector 103,
plot No.SDC/H-2 in sector 105, SDC/H-2 in sector 135 and
plot No.14 in sector 142.
(ii) Five plots for 4 star hotels : (area : 12,500 square metre E
each)
Plot No.SDC/H-1 in sectors 72, 103, 105 and 135 and plot
No.124A/1 in sector 124.
(iii) Ten plots for 5 star hotels : (area 24,000 square metre)
F
Plot Nos.H-1 to H-10 in sectors 96, 97 and 98.
9.The proposal for approving the increase in number of plots and
reductions in their size was placed before the NOIDA Board at
the 137th meeting on 1.9.2006. The NOIDA Board approved the
proposal. The terms and conditions for allotment drawn by the
CEO were also approved with a modification that they should G
provide for obtaining Hotel Completion Certificate by December
2009 (with authority to CEO to grant extension of time). In
pursuance of the said decision, NOIDA Authority published the
Hotel Site Allotment Scheme on 17.10.2006, by advertisements in
newspapers and by issue of information brochures containing H
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A detailed terms and conditions, inviting applications for allotment
of plots for 5 star, 4 star and 3 star hotels in NOIDA on 90 years
lease basis. Applications were made available between 17.10.2006
and 1.11.2006 (extended till 10.11.2006).”
3. The facts in all these Contempt Petitions are more or less
B identical and for facility, Contempt Petition No.413 of 2019 is taken as
the lead case. The reference to the expression the “Petitioner” shall
hereafter be taken as the Petitioner in said lead case while the expression
the “Petitioners” shall be taken as all the Petitioners in the Contempt
Petitions. The application preferred by the Petitioner for allotment of
Plot No.03, Block No. H, Sector No.96, Noida, admeasuring 24,000
C square metre having been accepted, Lease Deed dated 28.03.2007 was
executed between the Petitioner and NOIDA. The relevant recitals of
the Lease Deed were as under:-
“WHEREAS the Authority had floated a scheme for allotment of
[3/4/5] star hotel sites in NOIDA on 17/10/2006 (hereinafter
D referred to as the “Scheme”) in compliance of Tourism Department,
U.P. Government Order No.984/41-06-180/2005 dated 22/05/2006
and had invited applications for allotment of Hotel site under the
said Scheme from companies/institutions/consortium of companies/
institutions registered/incorporated in India or abroad which are
E in hotel business and satisfying the eligibility criteria and subject
to and on the terms and conditions set-forth in the said Scheme;
and
WHEREAS the Authority, after evaluation of the applications
received from the eligible ‘applicants including, inter alia, M/s.
F HAMPHSIRE HOTELS & RESORTS LLC, a Company
incorporated and existing under the laws of jurisdiction of its
incorporation, has issued its allotment Letter No. NOIDA/DGM
(IND.)/2007/91 dated 12/01/2007 (hereinafter referred to as the
“Allotment Letter”) to the said M/S. HAMPSHIRE HOTELS &
RESORTS LLC allotting them Plot No.03, Block-H, Sector-96,
G NOIDA admeasuring 24000 square metre approximately and more
fully described in Schedule ‘I’ hereto and inter alia requiring the
M/s. HAMPSHIRE HOTELS & RESORTS LLC to, inter alia,
pay the premium, take possession and execute the lease deed
within the period stipulated in the Letter of Allotment; and
H … … …
HAMPSHIRE HOTELS AND RESORTS (NOIDA) PVT. LTD. v. RITU 249
MAHESHWARI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

I. That in consideration of the total premium of A
Rs.19,53,60,000/- (Rupees Ninteen Crores Fifty Three Lacs
and Sixty Thousand only) agreed to be paid by the Lessee
at the time and in the manner hereinafter provided and in
further consideration of the lease rent herein reserved and
of the covenants, conditions and agreements hereinafter
B
contained and on the part of the Lessee to be paid observed
and performed, the Lessor doth hereby grant and demise
UNTO the Lessee all that plot of land numbered as 03 in
Block H Sector No.96 situated within the New Okhla
Industrial Development Area, District Gautam Budh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh, and containing by measurement 24,000 C
square metre …
… … …
II. That the Lessee has on or before the date of execution of
this lease deed paid unto the Lessor at its office or as
otherwise directed by the Lessor the yearly Lease Rent of D
Rs.48,84,000.00 (Rs. Forty Eighty Lacs Eighty Four
Thousand only) in advance on yearly basis, for the first 10
years of the Term of the Lease hereby granted commencing
from the date of execution of the lease deed and the yearly
Lease Rent for the remaining period of the Term shall be E
payable by the Lessee annually in advance on or before
the due date of payment set-forth in Clause 1 hereinabove,
without waiting for any demand, notice or reminder therefor.
… …”
4. The allotment of the hotel sites by NOIDA to various such F
allottees was challenged by way of two Writ Petitions (Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No.24917/2007 and PIL Writ Petition No.29252/2007) in the
High Court2 submitting inter alia that the allotment was at a very low
price. By an interim order dated 22.05.2007 the High Court directed the
State Government to exercise its power of revision under Section 41(3)
of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 read with G
Section 12 of said Act and to take a re-look in regard to the allotments.
The State Government considered the matter and found the allotments
to be irregular and, therefore, directed NOIDA to cancel the same. The

2
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad H
250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A decision was implemented by NOIDA by issuing cancellation orders
dated 03.08.2007. In view of the cancellation, the original writ petitions
were allowed to be withdrawn.
However, the allottees then preferred writ petitions challenging
cancellation of their allotments. These writ petitions were allowed by
B the High Court by common order dated 13.05.2008 and the cancellation
orders dated 03.08.2007 were set aside on the ground that they were
opposed to principles of natural justice for want of opportunity of hearing.
The High Court, therefore, remanded the matter for taking a fresh
decision.
C The order of remand was, however, challenged by the allottees
by filing Special Leave Petitions in this Court. By way of an interim
order, this Court permitted the State Government to give hearing to the
concerned allottees and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law,
uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the High Court in its
judgment and order dated 13.05.2008. Accordingly, the matter was
D considered by the State Government and by individual orders dated
08.09.2008 passed in the case of each of the allottees, a decision was
taken by the State Government to cancel the allotments made by NOIDA.
Since these orders were passed during the pendency of the
challenge in this Court, the allottees were permitted to challenge the
E orders of cancellation dated 08.09.2008 by filing additional grounds in
pending Special Leave Petitions.
5. After considering the rival submissions, by its judgment and
order dated 05.07.2011, this Court found that the allotment of commercial
plots to the allottees was valid and legal, but, since the commercial plots
F could have fetched premium at a rate of Rs.70,000/- per square metre
at the relevant time, this Court made following observations:-
“110. In these cases the allotment of commercial plots to appellants
is valid and legal. The violation is in making such allotment on
fixed allotment rate which is less than the rate the plots would
G have fetched by calling for tenders or by holding auctions.
Therefore the equitable solution in these cases is to give an
opportunity to the lessees to pay the difference thereby in
consideration which arose on account of wrong interpretation
instead of cancelling the leases.
H
HAMPSHIRE HOTELS AND RESORTS (NOIDA) PVT. LTD. v. RITU 251
MAHESHWARI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

111. According to the State Government, the commercial plots A
would have fetched a premium at rate of Rs.70,000 per square
metre at the relevant time (October 2006 to January 2007) and
NOIDA Authority had been denied the benefit of that allotment
rate, by reason of allotment of the plots at Rs.7400/- per square
metre. Therefore if the appellants are willing to pay the balance
B
of premium as claimed by respondents, the leases need not be
interfered.
112. In this case the violation of the policies of NOIDA in making
allotments has resulted in a lesser premium being charged than
what would have been applied for commercial plots. According
to respondents the premium that would have been charged was C
Rs.70,000/- per square metre as against Rs.7,400 per square metre.
Therefore, the violation of the guidelines in regard to disposal of
commercial plots has resulted only in a loss of revenue by way of
premium and if this could be made up, there is no reason why the
leases should not be continued. D
… … …
115. .. … …Therefore if the appellants (2006-2007 allottees) are
to be extended the aforesaid benefits offered to allottees under
the 2008 Scheme, the rate of Rs.70,000/- per square metre (the
rate of 2008 scheme was 10% more than Rs.70,000/- per square E
metre) claimed by the respondents becomes logical and reasonable.
We therefore find no reason to reject the claim of respondents
that the allotment rate should be Rs.70,000/- per square metre.
We accordingly grant the appellants an opportunity to save the
leases by paying the difference in premium at Rs.62600/- per F
square metre to make it upto Rs.70,000/- per square metre.
116. In view of the above we dispose of these appeals as follows
:
(i) The order of the High Court setting aside the revisional order
dated 1.8.2007 of the State Government and the consequential G
orders of cancellation of allotment of plots dated 3.8.2007 by
NOIDA Authority, is affirmed.
(ii) The revisional orders dated 8.9.2008 passed by the State
Government cancelling the allotments of plots to appellants, are
set aside. H
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A (iii) The appellants are given the option to continue their respective
leases by paying the premium (allotment rate) at Rs.70000/- per
square metre (with corresponding increase in yearly rent/one time
lease rent), without any location benefit charges. The appellants
shall exercise such option by 30.9.2011. Such of those appellants
exercising the option will be entitled to the following benefits which
B
has been extended in regard to the allottees under 2008 allotment
scheme of NOIDA Authority:

(a) 40% of FAR can be used by the allottee as commercial
space (as stipulated in the 2008 scheme).
C
(b) Permission to pay at its option, the balance to make up
25% of the premium (after adjusting all amounts paid at
Rs.7400/- per square metre plus location benefit charges)
on or before 30.9.2011 and the balance 75% of premium
in sixteen half yearly instalments commencing from
D 1.1.2012 with interest at 11% per annum (as offered to
the applicants in 2008 scheme).

(c) The lessees will be entitled to transfer rights in
accordance with the 2008 scheme.
E On exercise of such option, the lease shall continue and the period
between 1.8.2007 to 31.7.2011 shall be excluded for calculating
the lease period of 90 years. Consequently the period of lease
mentioned in the lease deed shall stand extended by a
corresponding four years period, so that the lessee has the benefit
F of the lease for 90 years. An amendment to the lease deed shall
be executed between NOIDA Authority and the lessee
incorporating the aforesaid changes.

(iv) If any appellant is unwilling to continue the lease by paying
the higher premium as aforesaid, or fails to exercise the option as
G per para (iii) above by 30.9.2011, the allotment and consequential
lease in its favour shall stand cancelled. In that event, NOIDA
Authority shall return all amounts paid by such appellant to
NOIDA Authority towards the allotment and the lease, and also
reimburse the stamp duty and registration charges incurred by it,
H
HAMPSHIRE HOTELS AND RESORTS (NOIDA) PVT. LTD. v. RITU 253
MAHESHWARI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

with interest at 18% per annum from the date of payment/incurring A
of such amounts to date of reimbursement by NOIDA Authority.
If NOIDA Authority returns the amount to the appellant within
31.12.2011, the rate of interest payable by NOIDA Authority shall
be only 11% per annum instead of 18% per annum.

(v) Parties to bear their respective costs.” B

6. Thus, the allottees who were willing to pay the premium at
Rs.70,000/- per square metre, with corresponding increase in yearly rent/
one-time lease rent without any location benefit charges, could exercise
an option whereafter an amendment to the lease deed had to be executed C
between NOIDA and the concerned allottee. But those allottees who
were unwilling to continue the lease by paying the higher premium, were
to be returned all amounts paid by them towards the allotment and the
lease and the amount of stamp duty and the registration charges incurred
by them with interest at 18% per annum from the date of payment/
incurring of such amounts to the date of reimbursement. D

7. The Petitioners exercised their option to continue their respective
leases by paying the premium at Rs.70,000/- per square metre.

8. On 29.09.2011, 25% of the premium and lease rent was
deposited by the Petitioner and thereafter, on 03.04.2013 additional E
amount of Rs.5 crores was deposited. It is submitted that despite such
deposits, no supplementary lease deed was executed. According to the
Petitioners, after making over the additional amount, at the rate stated
by this Court, the supplementary lease deed had to be executed on the
basis of which the Petitioners could have raised finance and gone ahead F
with the project. On the other hand, according to NOIDA, the lease rent
and other dues had to be cleared first, only whereafter the supplementary
lease deed would be executed.

It is in this background that the present Contempt Petitions have
been filed in this Court. G

9. During the course of hearing of these Contempt Petitions, on
05.09.2019 two options were suggested to resolve the disputes between
the parties. Those options were:-
H
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A “All the contempt petitioners-allottees shall pay up all the amounts
that are due alongwith the accrued interest on or before 31.12.2019,
whereafter, NOIDA shall execute a supplementary lease deed in
favour of the contempt petitioners-allottees.

OR
B
The plots in question which were allotted to the contempt
petitioners-allottees be resumed by NOIDA and put up for fresh
auction, and from and out of the proceeds the money deposited
by each of the contempt petitioners-allottees be returned by the
C NOIDA along with interest @ 11% p.a.”

Both the sides sought accommodation to seek instructions in the
matter and they were directed to file affidavits. Accordingly, the affidavits
were filed on behalf of the Petitioners as well NOIDA.

D 10. All the Petitioners filed their affidavits willing to exercise the
Second Option. The affidavit filed on behalf of NOIDA on 13.09.2019
stated as under:-

“4. In reference to the order passed by this Hon’ble Court, it is
respectfully submitted that the NOIDA would have not objection
E if this Hon’ble Court is pleased to permit the petitioner – allottee-
lessee to pay up all the amounts that are due along with accrued
interest on or before 31.12.2019 where after the NOIDA shall
execute the Supplementary lease deed in favour of the petitioner-
allottee-lessee company.
F
5. With reference to the second option set out in the Hon’ble
Court’s order dated 5.9.2019 and taking into consideration contents
of para 3 of the affidavit dated 11.9.2019 filed on behalf of the
petitioner-allottee-lessee company, the following five aspects may
very kindly be considered by this Hon’ble Court:
G
(i) that the petitioner-allottee lessee has been enjoying
possession of the leased plot since the September 2009;

(ii) that under terms of the allotment, the processing fees is
non-refundable;
H
HAMPSHIRE HOTELS AND RESORTS (NOIDA) PVT. LTD. v. RITU 255
MAHESHWARI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

(iii) that the stamp duty is paid to the State Government and A
not to NOIDA and as per the directions issued by this
Hon’ble Court in its Judgment dated 5.7.2011, the stamp
duty was refundable only in the event the allottee were
to exercise the option of not accepting the rate fixed by
this Hon’ble Court i.e. Rs.70,000/- per sq.mt. The
B
petitioner – allottee-lessee exercised the option of
continuing with the allotment @ Rs.70,000/- per sq.mt.
Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek refund of
the stamp duty from NOIDA.

(iv) that while enjoying possession of the leased plot, the C
petitioner has belatedly approached this Hon’ble Court
by alleging that the Supplementary lease deed has not
been executed.

(v) the interest that was paid was only on account of the
delay on the part of the petitioner – allottee-lessee in D
not paying the amount on time for which the petitioner -
allottee-lessee itself is responsible, therefore, whether
such interest amount is also liable to refunded and that
too with interest.
E
Therefore, this Hon’ble Court may like to consider whether the
petitioner-allottee-lessee is to be refunded the amount with
reference to all the 9 heads, excluding the stamp duty and that too
with 11% interest so as to enable the NOIDA to take its final
decision with respect to the second option noted in the Hon’ble
Court’s order dated 5.9.2019.” F

11. The matter came up on 17.09.2019. After quoting the relevant
portion from the Order dated 05.09.2019, the Order recited as under:-

“Thereafter, affidavits have been filed by the concerned contempt
petitioners in all the matters. G

By way of example, we may quote the figures available from the
affidavit filed by the contempt petitioner in Contempt Petition (Civil)
No.413 of 2019, which are to the following effect:
H
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A Sr. Date Challan Particular Amount
No.
1 11.11.2 00 6 4704 P rocess in g 5 ,00,000
C harges
2 11.11.2 00 6 4704 R egistratio n 5,00,00,0 00
Mo ney
3 06.03 .2 00 7 6392 Insta lment 14,53 ,60,00 0
B 4 06.03 .2 00 7 6392 Lease Rent 48,84,0 00
5 06.03.2 00 7 6392 Inter est 16 ,95,8 6 7
6 26.03.2 00 7 5 964/596 9 Inter est 3 ,53,64 0
7 11.05.2 00 7 443 14 On e Time 5,37,24,0 00
Lease Rent
8 29.09.2 01 1 5315 Balance 17,01 ,68,00 0
P remiu m
C 25% as per
order of
Ho n’ble
Su preme
Court &
Adva nce
Lease Rent
D 9 03.04.2 01 3 5611 Part Payment 5,00,00,0 00
of Instalm ent
Tot al Am ount Paid 47,66 ,85,50 7
12.03 .2 00 7 Stamp Duty 1,99,27,0 50
Pay ment
(Lease Deed Registered 28/03/2007)
E
Total Amount Paid 49,66,12,557”
The contempt petitioners thereafter submitted that they would
have no objection if NOIDA was to resume all the plots in question
subject to the aforesaid amounts being refunded to the contempt
F petitioners.
In response, an affidavit has been filed by NOIDA in which it is
submitted that certain elements out of the amounts mentioned
hereinabove would be non-refundable and, as such, those amounts
ought not to be taken into account while coming to the aggregate
G sum that could be returned to the contempt petitioners. It was
also submitted that the interest @ 11% per annum as suggested in
the order passed by this Court would be at a rate higher than the
prevalent rate and, as such, it needed to be scaled down.
We heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate and Mr.
H Ravindra Kumar, learned Advocate.
HAMPSHIRE HOTELS AND RESORTS (NOIDA) PVT. LTD. v. RITU 257
MAHESHWARI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate fairly submitted that A
the amounts mentioned against Heads at Sr. Nos.1, 5, 6 and Stamp
Duty may not be refunded to the contempt petitioners provided
reasonable rate of interest was awarded to them on the amounts
deposited by the contempt petitioners. In his submission, interest
@ 11% per annum would be reasonable considering the fact that
B
the huge amounts were deposited with the authorities.
Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned Advocate submitted that the
contempt petitioners had all the while enjoyed the property and,
as such, they were not entitled to any interest on the amounts
deposited by them. Said submission was refuted by Mr. Rohatgi
submitting that the land has always been lying without being put C
to any profitable use and, as such, the contempt petitioners have
not really enjoyed any benefit from the land.
Mr. Kumar then left the matter to the discretion of the Court and
suggested that the Court may consider granting interest at such
rate as it deems appropriate. D

Considering the entirety of the matter, in our view, the appropriate
interest rate could be @ 7% per annum.
In the circumstances, the options given in order dated 05.09.2019
could be availed, subject to the aforesaid modification. The E
appropriate affidavits shall be filed by the contempt petitioners as
well as NOIDA within three weeks from today. The affidavits
shall indicate in tabular form all the amounts as stated hereinabove
and then indicate separately those which would not be refundable.
If there be any other charges or dues, the same be indicated with
clarity in the affidavit of NOIDA.” F
12. A further affidavit was filed on behalf of NOIDA on 25.11.2019
submitting inter alia that in case the Petitioners express their intention
not to continue with the allotment and seek refund, the case would be
required to be considered as surrender in terms of Clause ‘N’ of the
Brochure, in which case the deposited sum or 30% of the premium, G
whichever is less, would be required to be forfeited and the remaining
amount would be refunded without interest. It was stated in the affidavit
as under:-
“3. It is submitted that pursuant to the allotment and the execution
of the Lease Dead in favour of the Petitioner Company, possession H
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A of the allotted plot was handed over to the Allottee – Lessee way
back on 28.9.2007. Ever since then the Petitioner is in the
possession of the allotted plot. However, as submitted in the
Affidavit filed earlier the Petitioner Company, except for making
part payment of the first instalment the petitioner company failed
and neglected to pay all the 16 instalments. As a result, it is in
B
arrears of huge dues payable to the NOIDA. It is submitted that
earlier, a Compliance Affidavit in reference to Hon’ble Court’s
Order dt. 5.9.2019 had been filed on 13.9.2019, the contents
whereof are reiterated and the same may be taken into
consideration by this Hon’ble Court.
C 4. It is further submitted that this Hon’ble Court, vide Order dt.
17.09.2019, has been pleased to grant opportunity to the respondent
to submit an Affidavit indicating in a tabular form the amounts
that had been deposited by the Petitioner. Liberty has also been
granted by the said order to indicate with clarity any other charge
D or dues which is not refundable.”
13. In the aforesaid backdrop, we heard learned counsel led by
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate for the Petitioners on one hand
and Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned Advocate for NOIDA.
14. Two options were suggested in the Order dated 05.09.2019.
E Going by the affidavits filed by the Petitioners and the stand taken by the
learned counsel on their behalf, the Petitioners are not agreeable to the
First Option, though NOIDA is completely agreeable.
15. The Second Option as suggested in the Order dated 17.09.2019,
contemplated sale of the plots after resumption by NOIDA, and payment
F to the Petitioners from and out of the sale proceeds. It was also made
clear that the interest of NOIDA could be secured by ensuring that in
case the price quoted in the fresh auction was lesser than what was
assured under the current arrangement with the Petitioners, the shortfall
could be directed to be made good by the Petitioners. But the affidavit
G filed by NOIDA has not dealt with this aspect and has suggested deduction
of 30% of the premium as stated above.
16. During the course of discussion, the learned counsel for the
Petitioners invited our attention to communication dated 21.10.2019
addressed by Commercial Department of NOIDA to M/S INGKA
Centres India Pvt. Ltd. accepting E-bid for allotment of a Commercial
H
HAMPSHIRE HOTELS AND RESORTS (NOIDA) PVT. LTD. v. RITU 259
MAHESHWARI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

Property admeasuring 47833 square meters, which is comparable with A
the size of the plots in the instant case. The communication shows that
the bid at the rate of Rs.1,59,010.4528 per sq. metres was accepted, as
against the price of Rs.70,000/- per sq. metres in the instant case.
17. The facts set out in afore-quoted paragraphs of the Judgment
dated 05.07.2011 indicate that the plots in the instant case were meant B
for five-star and three-star hotels which were to come up well-in-time
to cater to the demand for hotels around Commonwealth Games, 2010.
It has been more than 10 years since the Games got over but no
development on these plots has occurred. The tussle is going on between
the Petitioners on one side who submit that because of indifferent and
recalcitrant attitude on part of the authorities, they could not enter into C
any arrangement for financial accommodation, and as such, no
development could be undertaken; while on the other hand, the submission
on part of NOIDA is that unless the payment of premium in entirety was
made, no lease could be executed. Each side is blaming the other and
the resultant effect is that the properties are lying undeveloped, no payment D
of premium is forthcoming and the public interest is not getting subserved.
It was in this background that the Second Option was suggested so that
the Petitioners are allowed to withdraw themselves from the arrangement
and, at the same time, the interest of NOIDA is also well secured.
Submissions were advanced on the basis of what weighed with this
Court when the Judgment dated 05.07.2011 was passed, where this Court E
had given the facility of withdrawal from the arrangement to such of the
allottees who were unwilling to continue. In that case, the concerned
allottees were allowed to withdraw all the amounts including the stamp
duty and registration charges along with interest @ 18% per annum.
This aspect of the matter has been pressed into service on behalf of the F
Petitioners to submit that they were willing to forego the amounts indicated
at Sl. Nos. 1, 5 and 6 of the illustrative chart quoted in the Order dated
17.09.2019 and as such the offer on part of NOIDA to refund the
deposited amounts, after deducting 30% of the premium amount without
payment of any interest, would not be fair, if the current prices of the
lands in the area were to be taken into account. It was also submitted G
that the fault actually lies with NOIDA in not permitting the Petitioners
to enter into financial accommodation, and thus no development could
take place. These submissions are undoubtedly refuted by the learned
counsel for NOIDA.
H
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A 18. The present status is nothing but a stalemate in which valuable
assets of a public authority are locked completely. The public interest is
neither getting subserved, nor is NOIDA getting instalments towards
premium on time. We asked the learned counsel for NOIDA if any
proceedings for resumption of land were undertaken, to which the
response was in the negative. In this situation, the modalities suggested
B
by the Second Option, in our considered view, could yield results which
would be favourable to both sides, and at the same time would take care
of public interest as well. However, considering the price index which is
available through the bid as described in the communication dated
21.10.2019, and keeping the interest of NOIDA in forefront, in our view,
C the modalities stated hereafter, will take care of public interest and
competing claims of both sides.
19. Before we come to the modalities, certain aspects need to be
clarified including what amounts the Petitioners would be entitled to:-
A] From the illustrative chart, which was quoted in the Order
D dated 17.09.2019, the claims with regard to amounts mentioned
against Sl. Nos.1, 5 and 6 were given up by the Petitioners.
B] As regards stamp duty, the stand of NOIDA is that the money
was not paid to NOIDA but was paid to the State Government,
and, therefore, NOIDA cannot be made to refund the amount
E towards stamp duty. Since the State Government is not party to
the present matter, no direction in that behalf can be issued, and
the matter shall have to be left to the State Government to consider
whether there could be refund of stamp duty either in full, or in
part.
F C] Rest of the amounts comprise of two types of payments: a)
towards instalments of premium; and b) towards payment of lease
rent.
20. As regards lease rent, it is evident from the chart in the Order
dated 17.09.2019 that an amount of Rs.44,84,000/- was paid by the
G Petitioner by way of lease rent on 06.03.2007 and one-time lease rent
amounting to Rs.5,37,24,000/- was paid on 11.05.2007. One-time lease
rent constitutes payment for the entirety of the period of lease covered
by the document. Therefore, that component of the amount which
represents the remainder period after the plot is sold in terms of this
Order, ought not to be charged by NOIDA from the Petitioners. If the
H
HAMPSHIRE HOTELS AND RESORTS (NOIDA) PVT. LTD. v. RITU 261
MAHESHWARI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

plot is re-sold, the new allottee, in any case, will be paying in respect of A
such remainder period under a fresh lease executed in his favour. The
Petitioners shall, therefore, be entitled to refund of that component of
amount of one-time lease rent which proportionately represents the
remainder period after the plots in question are sold in terms of this
Order. They shall not, however, be entitled to any interest on such
B
component.
21. The amount of interest on refund of the amounts paid towards
premium that the Petitioners would be entitled to was subject matter of
discussion on the earlier occasion. By order dated 17.09.2019 it was
found that the appropriate rate of interest could be 7% per annum. The
Petitioners would, therefore, be entitled to 7% annual interest on the C
amounts deposited by them towards premium from time to time. These
amounts payable towards interest shall be calculated upto 30.04.2021
and shall stand frozen as on that date.
22. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the revised Second
Option shall be as under:- D

A) The concerned plots allotted to the Petitioners be sold by
NOIDA by inviting E-bids or by auction after advertising the same
as was done in the Scheme No.2019-20 (Commercial Builder Plot-
I)
E
B) If the price quoted in such E-bid for each of the concerned
plots is more than one and a half times of the price at which the
arrangement with the Petitioners was arrived at; that is to say,
more than Rs.1,05,000 per sq. metre, the Petitioners be returned
the amounts deposited towards premium in each case. However,
in case there is shortfall as against the rate of Rs.1,05,000/- per F
sq. metre, the shortfall shall be made good by the Petitioners and
to that extent the amount payable to the Petitioners towards refund
of amount paid towards premium shall stand reduced.
C) Insofar as refund of amounts towards remainder part of the
lease rent and the component of interest payable to each of the G
Petitioners are concerned, said amounts shall be made over only
if the price received by NOIDA in fresh sale of said plots in terms
of this Order is in excess of Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre and only
to the extent of excess beyond Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre.
H
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A D) The Petitioners shall, thus, first be made over the component
representing the amount paid by them towards premium in the
manner as stated above. It is only if the rate fetched in such re-
sale is greater than Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre that the Petitioners
shall be paid amounts towards the remainder part of the lease
rent and component of interest payable, as stated hereinabove;
B
subject always to the requirement that these amounts are paid
from the amounts representing the excess above the base price
of Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre; which will ensure that NOIDA
will always get a base rate of Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre for the
concerned plot in such re-sale. If the excess amount beyond
C Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre is not sufficient to absorb the amounts
payable to the Petitioners towards component of lease rent and
the interest; their entitlement shall stand reduced to that extent. It
is also made clear that if the difference between the base price of
Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre and the price fetched in the re-sale is
greater than what would be payable towards component of lease
D
rent and interest, NOIDA alone shall be entitled to such excess
amount.
E] By way of illustration:-
(a) If the price quoted in E-bid or auction for a plot of 20,000
E sq. metre is at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per sq. metre,
the shortfall will be Rs.5,000/- x 20,000/- (extent of plot)
= Rs.10 Crores. Thus, Rs.10 Crores shall be deducted
from the deposited amount towards premium and the
balance shall be refunded. Since the price quoted in E –
bid or auction is less than Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre,
F nothing shall be payable towards remainder part of the
lease rent and the component of interest.
(b) If the price quoted in E – bid or auction is at the rate of
Rs.1,20,000/- per sq. metre, the amount to be received
by NOIDA beyond the level of Rs.1,05,000/- per sq.
G metre for the same plot shall be Rs.15,000/- x 20,000/-
(extent of plot) = Rs.30 Crores. As the price quoted is
more than Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre:-
(i) The entire amount deposited towards premium
shall be refunded by NOIDA; and
H
HAMPSHIRE HOTELS AND RESORTS (NOIDA) PVT. LTD. v. RITU 263
MAHESHWARI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

(ii) So much of the amount representing remainder A
part of the lease rent and component of interest
which can be assorbed from and out of Rs.30
Crores shall be refunded but not beyond Rs.30
Crores.
(iii) Thus, if the amount representing remainder part B
of the lease rent and the component of interest is
greater than Rs.30 Crores, the entitlement shall
be only upto Rs.30 Crores and not in excess
thereof. However, if such amount payable
towards these two heads is less than Rs.30
Crores, the amount shall be paid in full and the C
balance shall be retained by NOIDA.
(F) In the process, NOIDA will always get minimum of
Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre in such re-sale.
G] After the concerned plots are sold in auction and appropriate D
documents are executed in favour of the new allottees, the
concerned Petitioners shall be entitled to apply to the State
Government for refund of amounts paid by them towards Stamp
Duty. Such applications shall be considered by the State
Government in accordance with the extant policy and in
accordance with law. E

23. The modality devised above will ensure that as against the
promised rate of Rs.70,000 per sq. metre, which premium is also in
arrears in the present cases, NOIDA shall get much more than that
towards price of land and will also stand to gain considerably. Accordingly,
in the process, not only will the public interest stand subserved, but the F
projects which have run into stalemate, will also come out of difficulties.
24. The Second Option given in the Order dated 05.09.2019 shall
stand modified to the aforesaid extent.
25. In case the Petitioners are agreeable to these conditions, the
G
Petitioners may exercise such option by filing appropriate affidavits with
NOIDA along with an appropriate Resolution of the Board of the
concerned Company. Upon such affidavit being filed within two weeks
from the date of this Order, NOIDA shall calculate the amounts deposited
by each of the Petitioners towards premium and so also the amounts
H
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.

A payable to each of the Petitioners towards component of lease rent and
interest from the date of each of those deposits @ 7% per annum upto
30.04.2021. A communication giving all the details, including the proposed
user as well as the minimum price at which the plots would be put up for
sale, shall be addressed to each of the Petitioners exercising such option
on or before 17.05.2021. The possession shall then be delivered by each
B
of the Petitioners of the concerned plots back to NOIDA by 31.05.2021.
Upon such handing over of the possession, the title of the Petitioners in
respect of the concerned plots shall stand extinguished. The Lease Deeds
in their favour, shall be delivered up by each of the Petitioners, which
shall also stand cancelled.
C 26. NOIDA shall, thereafter, put up the plots in question for auction
or invite E-bids within three months, in the same fashion as was done in
connection with the property referred to in the communication dated
21.10.2019. It will be entirely up to NOIDA to put up the plots for sale
collectively or individually or to sell them for any purpose which in the
D opinion of NOIDA would subserve public interest and devise the
modalities for sale. From and out of the sale proceeds received in such
sale, the amounts indicated above shall be paid to each of the Petitioners
exercising such Second Option in accordance with the principles as stated
above, within three months of the sale.
E 27. In case no option is exercised by any of the Petitioners in the
manner indicated hereinabove, or in case no possession is handed over
within the time stipulated even after exercising such option, it shall be
deemed that each of such Petitioners is not desirous of exercising the
Second Option and said Petitioners shall be treated to have opted for the
First Option as indicated in the Order dated 05.09.2019. In such cases,
F NOIDA shall issue appropriate communication calling upon them to pay
up all the dues in terms of the First Option within reasonable time. The
supplementary Lease Deed shall be executed only after all the dues as
indicated in the First Option are cleared. If the amounts are not cleared
within the time stipulated, the concerned plots shall stand resumed in
G favour of NOIDA and those Petitioners shall be dispossessed of the
plots in their occupation in a manner known to law.
28. It is made clear that the handing over of possession in exercise
of the revised Second Option, as granted earlier or taking over of
possession in terms of the preceding paragraph, shall be on “as is where
H is” basis. The concerned Petitioners shall not be entitled to any value
HAMPSHIRE HOTELS AND RESORTS (NOIDA) PVT. LTD. v. RITU 265
MAHESHWARI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

addition, be it in the form of construction of any structures or erection of A
any compound wall. The possession shall be handed over and/or received
along with such value additions, which shall vest in NOIDA. Similarly,
every individual on the plot in question must be made to vacate and the
handing over or receiving of possession must be clear and peaceful.
29. Though the scope of the Contempt Petitions was restricted to B
see whether functionaries of NOIDA were guilty of disobedience of the
directions issued by this Court, the matter was considered from the
standpoint of enabling both sides to settle their disputes and get over the
stalemate which has been obtaining for the last 10 years. The endeavour
was to see that the interest of both sides is sufficiently taken care of and
more than anything else, the public interest must stand subserved. It is C
with this solution in mind, that the directions as stated above have been
issued by this Court.
30. Subject to what is stated hereinabove, all the contentions raised
in these Contempt Petitions are rejected and Contempt Petitions are
closed. D

31. Ordered accordingly.

Divya Pandey Contempt petitions disposed of.
E

F

G

H