IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION NO.1006 OF 2008 IN  

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 20155 OF 2006

HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL  DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION  … PETITIONER

Versus VEENA SHARMA & ORS.            … RESPONDENTS

WITH  

REVIEW PETITION NO.1018 OF 2008 IN  

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 16893 OF 2006

HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL  DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION & ANR.         … PETITIONERS

Versus M/S SUNITA INDUSTRIES              … RESPONDENT

WITH  

REVIEW PETITION NO.1171 OF 2008 IN  

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 18080 OF 2006

HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL  DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION & ANR.         … PETITIONERS

Versus

M/S MODESTY GARMENTS & ANR.          … RESPONDENTS

WITH  

REVIEW PETITION NO.1787 OF 2008 IN  

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 16707 OF 2006

HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL  DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION & ANR.        … PETITIONERS

Versus RAMANJIT SINGH              … RESPONDENT

WITH  

REVIEW PETITION NO.1317 OF 2008 IN  

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 19522 OF 2006

HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL  DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION & ANR.         … PETITIONERS

Versus

M/S GIRISH KHANNA & ANR.             … RESPONDENTS

ORDER

S.B. Sinha, J.

These applications  have been filed by the Haryana  State  Industrial  

Development  Corporation  for  review  of  judgments  and  orders  dated  

19.2.2008 and 20.2.2008.   

2

In  effect  and  substance,  these  review  applications  are  confined  to  

interpretation of one of the directions issued by this Court relying on or on  

the basis of the statements made by Mr. Sharan, learned Senior Counsel at  

the time of hearing.   

We may notice the same:

“ In all these cases, it is difficult to uphold the  order of the High Court.  But a general offer was  made by the learned Additional Solicitor General  that those who intend to obtain reallotment 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.

Before us, several allottees had categorically  made a statement that they are ready and willing to  pay the prevailing price as fixed by the appellant-  Corporation.    Keeping  in  view  the  facts  and  circumstances of this cases, we are of the opinion  that in the event, respondents offer the prevailing  price as on the date of judgment of the High Court,  the  plot,  in  question,  shall  stand  re-allotted  and  should  be  subject  to  the  same  terms  and  conditions.  Such reallotment may be made even in  cases where we have found the order of the High  Court to be unsustainable.

Respondents shall deposit the amount within  six weeks from date.   Appellant shall hand over  the possession of the plot, in question, within four  weeks  thereafter.   The  highest  executive  of  Appellant  –  Corporation  shall  see  to  it  that  the  

3

order  of  this  Court  is  complied  with.   It  is,  however, made clear that in the event of failure on  the part  of  the respondents  concerned in making  payment in terms of this order, it would be open to  the appellant to take recourse to such action as is  permissible in law.

Mr. Sharan pointed out that the offer made by him on behalf of the  

Corporation was considered by this Court in its order dated 20th February  

2008 passed initially in SLP (C) No. 19522 of 2006, which reads as under:

“SLP (C) 19522/2006

Another submission was made by Mr. P.S.  Patwalia,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  on  behalf of the respondent that his client is ready and  willing  to  accept  the  offer  of  the  petitioner  that  fresh  letter  of  allotment  may  be  issued  at  the  prevailing rate as on the date of the passing of the  judgment of the High Court i.e. Rs.12,500/- per sq.  meter  which  having  been  accepted  by  Mr.  A.  Sharan,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  appearing on behalf of the petitioner, we direct that  the Special  Leave Petition be disposed of on the  afore-mentioned terms.

It  is  accepted  at  the  Bar  that  consequent  upon  issuance  of  fresh  letter  allotment,  the  respondent  would  be  getting  three  years  time  to  complete  the construction project  and commence  the  production  of  goods  within  a  period  of  five  years.  He will furthermore be liable to pay all the  dues within the aforementioned period subject to  

4

all adjustments of payments made by him in favour  of the petitioner.  

It is stated by Mr. A. Sharan, learned ASG  that  the  possession  shall  be  handed  over  on  17.3.2008”

It was pointed out that in terms of the letter of allotment, the period  

for  extension  of  implementation  of  the  project  is  hedged  by  certain  

conditions, which are as under:

“The period for implementation of the project can  be extended by HSIDC for a period of one year  subject  to  the  allottee  having  completed  construction  equivalent  to  20%  of  Permissible  Covered Area (PCA) in case of plot size is upto  one acre and 10% of PCA in case plot size is more  than one acre.  Further, the allottee will satisfy the  Corporation that he could not go into production  within  three  years  from  the  date  of  offer  of  possession for reasons beyond his control and he  took  effective  steps  for  implementation  of  the  project.

Second  extension  of  one  year  for  completion  of  project  i.e.  after  four  years  from  the  offer  of  possession  will  be  granted  only  in  exceptional  circumstances  with  the  approval  of  Board  of  Directors of HSIDC.”

5

Mr. A. Sharan,  learned Senior  Counsel  appearing on behalf  of  the  

review  petitioners  would  urge  that  the  judgment  of  this  Court  may  be  

reviewed so as to clarify the conditions for extension.   

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have no  

objection to such clarifications being made.  

We, therefore, in modification of our orders dated 19th February, 2008  

and  20th February  2008  direct  that  the  extension  of  the  period  shall  be  

governed by the terms and conditions mentioned in their respective letters of  

allotment and as noticed hereinbefore.

These Review Petitions are allowed.  No costs.   

.……………………………….J. [S.B. Sinha]

...…………………………..…J. [V.S. Sirpurkar]

New Delhi; July 16, 2009

6