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.