Supreme Court of India
M/S. DULARI EXPORTS LTD. & ORS.versusH.S.L.D.C. LTD. & ORS.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 914
- Decided
- 16 July 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
The corporation, by its notice and offer, effectively directed resumption of the plot, rendering the order to hand over possession valid; consequently, the review petition is dismissed.
Summary
Dulari Exports Ltd. and others were allotted an industrial plot by H.S.I.D.C. Ltd. They paid four installments but failed to pay the fifth within the stipulated time. The corporation issued a notice stating that the plot was liable for resumption and offered the petitioners a chance to retain it at Rs.2200 per square metre if they accepted within 15 days, which they did not. The corporation then directed the petitioners to hand over possession, and the Supreme Court earlier disposed the appeal on the basis of that offer. In the review petition, the petitioners argued that the corporation had not actually directed resumption; however, the Court held that the corporation's actions amounted to a de facto resumption, making the possession order valid, and dismissed the review petition with costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the corporation's notice and offer constitute a direction for resumption of the allotted plot.
- Whether the petitioners' failure to accept the offer within the stipulated period bars them from retaining the plot.
- Whether subsequent compliance with construction requirements can revive the corporation's earlier offer.
- Whether the review petition can be entertained on the ground of factual errors in the earlier judgment.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 137
Subjects
industrial plot allotmentresumption of landpossession orderreview petitionSupreme Courtoffer acceptanceArticle 137
Judgment
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 1057
MIS. DULARI EXPORTS LTD. & ORS. A
V.
H.S.l.D.C. LTD. & ORS.
(Review Petition No.1079 of. 2009)
In
(Civil Appeal No. 4130 of 2008) B
JULY 16, 2009 '·
[5.8. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.]
. 'URBAN DEVELOPMENT:. .c
'"-···
Besumption of allotted industrial plot - Allottee failed to
deposit the last iristalrrient - Corporation .directing allottee to
han~over possessiqn,.- Appeal disposed of by 9upreme
Court on the basis ,of the statement made on behalf of D
Corporation that those who intended to obtain re-allotment of
p/ot ~ould do so on payment of price as per rate'prevailing
on date of order of High Court - Review Petition contending
that Court proceeded on a wrong premise that Corporation
had directed resumption of allotment ofplot - Held: Allottee E
did not deposit the required amount within the time given and
as such Corporation mainly rejected objection but directed
the allottee to handover possession - Possession can be
directed to be handed over only on resumption of plot -
Therefore, Corporation had in effect and substance directed
resumption of plot - However, if Corporation had returned the F
requisite amount depositeg by allottee on the ground of
pendency of review petition, the same shall be accepted if the
allottee tenders it within the period prescribed - Review
petition dismissed - Constitution.of India, 1950 -Article 137.
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition (C)
No. 1079 of 2008.
In
1057 H
1058 SUPREME C.OURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.
A Civil Appeal No. 4130 of 2008.
.-
From the Judgment & Order dated 16.5.2008 of this Court
in Civil Appeal No. 4130 of 2008. -
A. Sharan ASG, Ravindra Bana, Puneet Bali, Prabhjeet
B Jauhar, Hittan Nehra and S.S. Jauhar for the Appearing Parties.
The Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
c S.B. SINHA, J. 1. This petition has been filed for review
of our judgment and order dated 16th May, 2008.
2. The instant case is one of those cases wherein it was
opined that it was difficult to uphold the order of the High Court,
D but having regard to the general offer made by the learned
Additional Solicitor General to the effect that those who ' ..,
intended to obtain re-allotment of plot may do so on payment
of the price as per the current rate as on the date of the order
of the High Court. The appeal filed by the Corporation was
E disposed of on the above terms.
·3. Mr. Puneet Bali, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Review-Petitioners would contend that this Court
4
has proceeded on a wrong premise that the Corporation had
in fact directed resumption of the allotted plot. It was contended
F that the Corporation never directed any resumption owing to
alleged non-compliance of the conditions of grant in regard to
completion of construction of the factory premises within the
prescribed period. In this connection, our attention has been
drawn to various orders passed by the concerned authorities
G including the appellate authority and the High Court
4. Our attention has furthermore been drawn to certain ~ ~
factual errors purported to have been committed by this Court
while noticing the facts of the matter.
H
/
DULARI EXPORTS LTD. & ORS. v. H.S.l.D.C. LTD. &1059
ORS. (S.B. SINHA, J.]
- .. We may, therefore, place on record the facts as stated
before .us by Mr. Bali so far as the same are relevant.
A
The Review-Petitioners had paid four installments. They
did not pay the fifth installment within the prescribed time. They
submitted a demand draft of Rs.19,00,253/- towards fifth
B
installment. The Corporation by a letter dated 30th January,
2004 referring to its earlier order dated 1st January 2004 by
which a show cause notice was issued to it on account of non
commencement of construction within the stipulated period as
also the subsequent reply of the petitioners dated 9th January
2004, stated:-
c
"In this regard, I am again directed to inform you that as
per terms and conditions of allotment, you were required
-, •
to start construction of factory building within a period of
one year and six months from the date of offer of
possession, but you have not started the same even after
D
lapse of more than two years and six months.
In view of the above, the reply submitted by you is
not satisfactory and plot has become liable for resumption
E
and as such the demand drafts submitted by you have not
yet been accepted. On account of above violations though
r the plot has become liable for resumption, however, before
resuming the plot, the Corporation has decided to give you
an opportunity of retaining the plot at the current price of
Rs.2200/- per square meter. In case you are interested in
F
retaining the plot at current price of Rs.2200/- per square
meter, you are advised to convey your acceptance, within
a period of 15 days from the date of issue of this letter,
failing which the plot will be resumed without any further
notice in this regard." G
..I -i,
The Review-Petitioners did not accept the said offer. It filed
objections thereto. By an order dated 27th June, 2005, the said
objections were rejected, stating:
H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 10 S.C.R.
" The objections filed by you have been duly considered,
A
wherein you have neither disputed the starting of . -
construction over plot in question within the stipulated
period, as one of the conditions of allotment, failure
whereof renders the plot liable to be resumed nor
B explained any reasons justifying your failure to comply with
the said condition. Hence the objections filed by you have
no merit and hereby rejected. Accordingly a cheque dated
15.6.2005 for Rs.8155203/- drawn on State Bank of India,
Industrial area branch, Panchkula is being sent to you on
c account of refund of the amount deposited by you after
deductions as per terms and conditions of allotment.
Further, the demand drafts in original bearing Nos. 204383
for Rs.900000/-; 204384 for Rs.900000/- & 204385 for
Rs.100253/-, all dated 9.1.2004 and Drawn on Indian
Overseas bank are also returned to you, which you were
D
deposited with the Corporation towards 5th installment of
.._
the cost of plot. You are requested to hand over the vacant
possession of the plot to Estate Manager, IMT, Manesar
within a period of 30 days."
E 5. An appeal was preferred thereagainst and the Appellate
Authority was of the opinion that it was merely a proposal for
resumption and not an order of resumption itself.
The learned counsel would contend that it is on the
'
F aforementioned premise he filed a writ petition before the High
Court which was allowed by an order dated 8th May 2006. It
was urged that the Review Petitioners during the pendency of
the writ petition had not only completed the construction of the
factory but also commenced commercial production, this Court
should not have equated the case of their with those of others.
G
Mr. Bali pointed out that the current rate on which the Review-
Petitioners were required to deposit is Rs.4,000/- per square ,_ ....
meter, but it has all along been and still is ready and willing to
pay Rs.2,200/- per square meters as demanded of them earlier
by the Corporation.
H
DULARI EXPORTS LTD. & ORS. v. H.S.l.D.C. LTD. &1061
ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
6. Before embarking on the issue raised before us, we A
........ ..,.
~
may place on record that tha learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Review-Petitioners at the initial stage of the
hearing like others made an offer that he would pay the amount
calculated at the market rate as prevailing on the date of
delivery of the judgment by the High Court but on the next day B
they turned back therefrom. A prayer was made to recall that
order, which was allowed and the appeal was heard on merits.
7. It may be true that the Corporation did not expressly use
the words ·resumption of the plot' but in effect and substance
it must be held to have done so. In its purported so-called
c
proposal for resumption, the Corporation categorically stated
that despite the fact that it violated the conditions of allotment,
it was free to offer the current price for regularization of the
~
.. • allotment at the rate of Rs.2,200/- per square meter.
Acceptance of such an offer was valid only for a period of 15 D
days from the date of issue of the suit notice. No offer was
made within the stipulated period. In fact, Review- Petitioners
objected thereto. Evidently, on the premise that they had
complied with the terms and conditions of the letter of allotment,
they filed objections. The said objections were not only rejected E
but the Review- Petitioners were directed to handover
possession. Possession can be directed to be handed over
only on resumption of plot There cannot, therefore, any doubt
whatsoever that the Corporation had in effect and substance
directed resumption of the plot allotted to the Review- F
Petitioners.
Be that as it may, it was stated before us that during the
pendency of the writ petition, the Review-Petitioners had not
only completed the construction but. also started commercial
G
production, but this Court while considering the legality or
...... _. otherwise of the order passed by the High Court as entitled to
consider the issue keeping in view the initial order passed by
the Corporation. Any subsequent event might have been a
relevant fact for the purpose of passing equitable orders, but
H
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 10 S.C.R.
A the same by itself would not be a ground to revive the offer of
the appellant to pay Rs.2,200/- per square meter although it ' ~
failed and/or neglected to do so within the stipulated period.
8. We may, however, before parting, place on record that
Mr. Bali contended that the requisite amount had been tendered
8
to the Corporation but the same had been returned on the
ground of pendency of the review application. If that be so, in
the evemt, the Review-Petitioners tender the requisite amount
to the Corporation within a period of seven days from date, the
C same shall be accepted without any demur whatsoever.
9. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the application for
review on merit must be dismissed. The Review Petition is
dismissed accordingly with costs payable to the Corporation.
Counsel's fee is assessed at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
D only).
R.P. Review Petition
.. dismissed .
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "industrial plot allotment"Sign in to search