Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri V. Shekhar, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Pradeep Dubey and Sri Aditya Kumar Singh for the petitioners, Sri Satish Chaturvedi, assisted by Sri Anadi Krishna Narayana for respondent No. 1, Sri V. P. Varshney assisted by Smt. Suman Jaiswal for respondent No. 4. Learned standing counsel has been heard for respondents No. 2 and 3.
(2.) BRIEF facts, which emerge from pleadings of the parties, are ; the petitioners made an application on 7th December, 2000 for allotment of an industrial plot to U. P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Tronica City, Loni, district Ghaziabad. By an order dated 18th December, 2000 the petitioners were allotted Plot No. D-9/A/3 area 1800 square meters at the rate of Rs. 840 per square meter. The petitioners was asked to deposit 25% of the amount by 16th January, 2001, i.e., an amount of Rs. 3,28,000 after adjusting the earnest money of Rs. 60,000. The remaining 75% of the premium was to be paid by the petitioners in ten equal half yearly instalments with effect from 1st July, 2001. The interest at the rate of 17% per annum was also to be charged on the outstanding balance. The petitioners wrote to respondent No. 1 for possession and execution of the agreement on 31st May, 2001. Letters were issued by respondent No. 1 praying for depositing the instalments with interest. Letter dated 12th December, 2003 was issued to the petitioners by respondent No. 1 informing that an area of 1800 square meter was allotted to the petitioners on 18th December, 2000 but after tracing of the plot the area has become 2985 square meters. The petitioners were asked to deposit the amount of excess area at the rate of Rs. 1,155 per square meter and Rs. 1,050 per square meter for the area in excess to 2000 square meter with location charges, total Rs. 12,65,250. Another letter dated 22nd January, 2004 was issued demanding Rs. 75,000 as corner charges. Again vide letter dated 5th February, 2004 an amount of Rs. 15,14,000 as the amount for excess area was demanded. On 29th July, 2004 a letter was written by respondent No. 1 to the petitioners informing that payment of dues has not been made. The petitioners were requested to furnish the documents and make the payment failing which cancellation of allotment shall take place. In reply to the aforesaid letter, the petitioners submitted a detail letter dated 24th August, 2004. With regard to the excess area following options were given by the petitioners : "Regarding excess area we hereby propose the following options for your kind consideration : (a) Since the excess area is very high therefore, either we should not be compelled to accept the excess area or this area should be allotted to us as per our original allotment rate of above plot. (b) We also agree to divide this whole plot size approximate 3000 sq. meter into two portions and allot us one corner part (because we were allotted corner plot) of approximate 1500 sq. meter as convenient to the U.P.S.I.D.C." Again the petitioners wrote a letter dated 8th November, 2004 expressing their agreement to solve the matter by accepting the said plot with 30 meters front with insistence that corner plot shall be accepted and plot size will come approximately 1400-1500 square meters. The said letter was written in response to personal discussion with Project Manager. The respondent No. 1 thereafter issued letter dated 23rd November, 2004 allotting Plot No. D-9 area 1415.60 square meters after adjusting the amount already paid by the petitioners. The petitioners were informed that an amount of Rs. 3,15,297 is still due against the premium and interest, which should be paid by 31st December, 2004 and thereafter lease be executed and possession be taken. By letter dated 15th March, 2005 the petitioners paid an amount of Rs. 2,00,000 by bank draft and requested to send the details of premium, interest and other levies including the pending amount. By letter dated 19th July, 2005 the petitioners were informed that an amount of Rs. 1,29,208 is balance, which has not yet been paid and the petitioners case has fallen in the category of cancellation of the allotment. The petitioners on 9th August, 2005 sent a bank draft of Rs. 1,29,208 as full and final balance payment. A lease deed dated 18th February, 2006 was executed in favour of the petitioners for an area of 1415 square meters. The lease deed mentioned the amount as full paid. In pursuance to the lease, the petitioners took possession on 24th February, 2006 and possession memo was issued. After taking possession of the plot, the petitioners claim to have sent a letter dated 28th March, 2006 to the Project Officer by post requesting to re-allot the remaining area of Plot No. D-9 as per original plan basis. The petitioners again sent a reminder on 27th May, 2006 making request for allotment. It was stated in the letter that 1800 square meters is barest minimum requirement, hence the remaining plot be also allotted. The petitioners have sent thereafter two letters under Right to Information Act, which according to the petitioners were not considered except informing that their application has been sent to the Project Director. The petitioners filed this writ petition praying for following reliefs : "(a) call for original records in respect of allotment of plot No. D-9, Sector A-3, Tronica City, in the Industrial Area of U.P.S.I.D.C., Ghaziabad and after perusing the same, issue appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondent to allot the remaining portion of the said plot earlier offered for allotment to the petitioner on terms and condition on which it was offered. (b) direct the respondents that they should not finalise and allot the remaining part of the plot mentioned supra to any other party and give first preference to the petitioner who is already in possession of part of the said plot and if it has been allotted, after giving opportunity the said party adjudicate the right of the petitioner qua the said third party." Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri V. Shekhar, senior advocate, in support of the writ petition contended that petitioner having allotted plot of 1800 square meters vide letter dated 18th December, 2000, the respondents had no authority or jurisdiction to reduce the area to 1415 square meters. The respondent No. 1 cannot unilaterally change the terms of the contract and the respondents were bound to allot 1800 square meters plot to the petitioners and the action of the respondents in allotting plot of lessor area is invalid. The petitioners have legitimate expectation of receiving plot of 1800 square meters. It is contended that there was no division of Plot No. D-9 and the division of plot was made subsequently to harm the interest of the petitioners. The respondent No. 4 was never an applicant in whose favour the lease has now been executed of rest of the area of Plot No. D-9 (renumbered as Plot No. 8A). Reliance has been placed by counsel for the petitioners on judgment of the Apex Court in M.R.F. Ltd., Kottayam v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Sales Tax and others, (2006) 8 SCC 702 and the judgment of the Apex Court in Delhi Development Authority and another v. Joint Action Committee, Allottee of S.F.S. Flats, (2008) 2 SCC 672. It has further been contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had paid the amount for 1800 square meters whereas they have been allotted plot of only 1415 square meters and the amount, which was paid by the petitioners was in excess to the amount required to be paid for 1415 square meters plot.
(3.) SRI Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, refuting the submission of counsel for the petitioners, contended that it is true that petitioners were initially allotted an area of 1800 square meters but plot size having been increased as 2985 square meters, the petitioners were offered to take entire plot, which was not accepted by the petitioners. Thereafter, petitioners themselves gave option that plot be divided into two and the petitioners are ready to take one portion, i.e., corner plot. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has referred to the letter dated 24th August, 2004 (Annexure-25 to the writ petition) by which an option was given by the petitioners themselves. Reliance has also been placed upon the letter dated 8th November, 2004 of the petitioners (Annexure-26 to the writ petition) in which the petitioners themselves mentioned that plot size shall be approximately 1400-1500 square meters. It is submitted that petitioners accepted the plot of 1415 square meters without any protest, lease deed was executed and the petitioners have taken possession thereafter. It is contended that another part of the plot, i.e., Plot No. 8A, was allotted on 2nd May, 2006 in favour of one Indra Pal Singh. It is submitted that allotment in favour of Indra Pal Singh was never questioned by the petitioner. Subsequently the said plot was transferred with the approval of respondent No. 1 by Indra Pal Singh and a lease deed in favour of respondent No. 4 was also executed on 25th September, 2007. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that allotment in favour of Indra Pal Singh has not been challenged in the writ petition and the prayer of the petitioners that the respondents be directed not to finalise and allot the plot has become infructuous. He has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited v. Indrajeet Sawhney, AIR 1996 SC 2244. Sri V. P. Varshney, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, submitted that allotment in favour of respondent No. 4 having not been challenged in the writ petition, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. He has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in Skyline Contractors Pvt. Ltd. and another v. State of U. P. and others, 2008 (4) AWC 3786 (SC).;