REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION NO.1079 OF 2008

IN  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4130 OF 2008

M/S DULARI EXPORTS LTD. & ORS.       … PETITIONERS

Versus

H.S.I.D.C. LTD. & ORS.            … RESPONDENTS

ORDER

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,  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 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 has proceeded on a wrong  

premise that the Corporation had in fact directed resumption of the allotted  

plot.  It was contended 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 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.   

We may, therefore, place on record the facts as stated before us by  

Mr. Bali so far as the same are relevant.   

2

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 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:-

“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 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  and  as  such  the  demand  drafts  submitted by you have not yet been accepted.  On  account  of  above  violations  though  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  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.”

3

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:

“ The objections filed by you have been duly  considered, 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  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  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  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.”

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.   

4

The learned counsel would contend that it is on the 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.  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.  

6. Before  embarking on the  issue raised before  us,  we may place on  

record  that  the  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 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  

5

done so.  In its purported so-called 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 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  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-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  production,  but this Court while  

considering the legality or otherwise of the order passed by the High Court  

was 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 the same by itself would not be  

6

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 to the Corporation  

but the same had been returned on the ground of pendency of the review  

application.  If that be so, in the event,  the Review-Petitioners tender the  

requisite amount to the Corporation within a period of seven days from date,  

the 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 only).   

.……………………………….J. [S.B. Sinha]

...…………………………..…J. [V.S. Sirpurkar]

New Delhi; July 16, 2009

7