- (1.) AMITAVA Lal, J. In 1995 the respondent-authority allotted a commercial plot for the purpose of encouraging the growth in the Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Area. Plot was numbered as 3-B measuring 2000 sq. mtrs. whereunder the petitioner wanted to establish a Trade Facilities Centre. The plot No. 3-B was carved out from plot No. 3 having total area of 4000 sq. mtrs. While the construction designs of the proposed structure on the plot was being scrutinized as per the bye-laws of the authority, it transpired to them that additional area of 2000 sq. mtrs. would better serve architectural viability of the said plot in terms of availability of floor area and building design, hence the petitioner decided to avail the additional area of 2000 sq. mtrs. of commercial land which was lying adjacent to the plot allotted to the petitioner. Petitioner made approaches to the respondent authority. After various discussions on 1st September, 1997 the authority allotted the plot No. 3-A to the petitioner on the requisite terms and conditions as mentioned therein. The petitioner company deposited 20% of the premium amounting to Rs. 9. 5 lacs on 13th September, 1997. Petitioner requested the respondent authority to allow payment of further premium in 10 (ten) instalments with interest 18% on the balance amount of premium. On 17th November, 1997 the allotment was cancelled by the respondents and the premium of Rs. 9. 5 lacs which was deposited by the petitioner was refunded. The writ petition was filed. Interim order was passed. Ultimately order dated 17th November, 1997 was quashed with a direction upon the respondent authority to pass appropriate orders only after giving appropriate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Consequently petitioner approached the respondent authority and re-deposited a sum of Rs. 9. 5 lacs as per 20% of the premium on 31st March, 1998 and proposed to deposit the balance in 6 (six) months. The respondent rejected the representation. Further made a request of review which was turned down. The ground of rejection of the claim is that there was no advertisement for the purpose of allotment of commercial plot which according to the petitioner is baseless because of the reason that inspite of best effort the authority did not succeed attracting intending buyers for the commercial plots and upon being unsuccessful they have considered the petitioner's application. Since no contract was concluded, question of consideration of cause under review is yet open and when the same was not adhered, the petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court to quash the orders dated 2nd December, 1998 and 20th January, 1999 being Annexures 11 and 13 respectively and get an order for acceptance of the balance amount and allotment of the land in question.
(2.) ACCORDING to the respondent authority, the petitioner has not come with clean hands. The petitioner wanted to get more time to pay the instalments which was against policy decision of the NOIDA authority. On 22nd January, 1997 Board of Greater NOIDA authority framed rules for allotment of commercial land and the authority is strictly following such guidelines. The petitioner opted to acquire 1000 sq. mtrs. of the commercial land in May, 1995 and June, 1995 and amended his proposal and demanded 2000 sq. mtrs. The said land was allotted to him after two years but the petitioner did not execute the work at the site nor raised any construction over the said allotted land but further demanded additional land. The intention of the petitioner is mala fide. He wants to get allotment of the land without complete payment and complying the conditions. The writ petition is wholly misconceived and liable to be dismissed with costs. Time and again representations were heard and opportunities were afforded to the petitioner to make submissions. It is to be remembered that as per rules framed by the respondent authority in a meeting held on 22nd January, 1997 allotment of the land of the Greater NOIDA can only be made after due advertisement published in the newspapers and all applications were considered. Facutually the petitioner has got the allotment directly on his application without following the proper procedure as aforesaid. The order of the allotment is rightly cancelled. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner added that an order of the authority cannot be construed in the light of the explanations subsequently given. There should not be any vagueness in considering the cause. Legality of the order passed by the statutory authority must be judged on the face thereof as the reason contained therein cannot be supplemented by an affidavit. Apparently we do not find any cause which can grossly affect the merit. Therefore, we called upon the judgments on the merit. He cited three judgments which are reported in J. T. 1994 (6) SC 292, Delhi Development Authority v. Pushpendra Kumar Jain, 1998 (1) JCLR 242 (SC) : AIR 1998 SC 1400, Tarsem Singh v. Sukhminder Singh and 2003 (2) JCLR 550 (All) : 2000 (6) SCC 113, Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India & Anr.
(3.) IN the first judgment i. e. JT 1994 (6) SC 292 (supra) we find the Supreme Court held that there is no legal basis for holding that a vested right is obtained by such type of petitioner in respect of the respective allotment. The public authority has a right to identify the allottee. The allotment is selection process. It is not the allotment itself. Mere identification or selection of the allottee does not clothe the person selected with a legal right to allotment at the price prevailing on the date of drawal of lots. The price or rates prevailing on the date of such communication of allotment is applicable unless provided in the scheme. From AIR 1998 SC 1400 (supra) we find that an agreement would be void if both the parties to the agreement were under a mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement. It was also held therein that bilateral transaction by two or more parties if not in writing cannot be deviated from the definition of the contract. 'contract' is a bilateral transaction between two or more parties. Every contract has to pass through several stages beginning with the stage of negotiation during which the parties discuss the proposals and the counter-proposals as also the consideration resulting finally in the acceptance of the proposals. The proposal when accepted gives rise to an agreement. Mutual consent which should also be a free consent as defined under Sections 13 and 14 of the Contract Act, is the sine qua non of a valid agreement. One of the essential elements which go to constitute a free consent is that a thing is understood in the same sense by a party as is understood by the other party.;