Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) THIS bunch of writ petitions raising similar questions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. All these writ petitions have been filed on similar facts and grounds. It is sufficient to refer to the pleadings of writ petitions No. 230 of 2009, 266 of 2009 and 22 of 2009 for deciding all these writ petitions.
(2.) BRIEF facts necessary to be noted for deciding these writ petitions are; New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'Noida') issued a residential plot scheme 2004 (1) inviting applications for allotment of residential plots in different sectors including Sector No. 44. The petitioners submitted applications in response to the notice by depositing the registration amount. The Noida authority have conducted draw of lots on 2.7.2005 in which several applicants were selected for allotment. By a subsequent order dated 4.7.2005, the draw of lots held on 2.7.2005 was cancelled. A writ petition being Civil Misc. writ petition No. 48287 of 2005, Deepak Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others was filed in this Court for a direction upon the respondents to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner Deepak Sharma on the basis of the allotment letter issued pursuant to draw of lots held on 2.7.2005. Subsequently by means of amendment application, the petitioner sought the quashing of the order dated 4.7.2005. Another writ petition No. 50418 of 2005 Manav Sewa Samiti and another vs. State of U.P. was filed praying for a direction prohibiting the Noida authority to approve the draw of lots held on 2.7.2005 and for causing an investigation to be done by the suitable agency to determine the liability of individual officers and for holding a fresh draw of lots. The aforesaid two writ petitions were heard by a Division Bench of this Court and were decided by judgment and order dated 5.10.2005. The Division Bench came to the conclusion that that in the draw of lots held on 2.7.2005, fraud and manipulation were done and the order dated 4.7.2005 cancelling the draw of lots was fully justified. The Division Bench further held that the official of the Noida authority had surpassed all levels of fraud and had lost confidence of public therefore, in order to find out the guilty persons responsible for fraud and manipulation in the draw of lots and in order to restore the confidence of the public in the matter, fresh draw of lots be not held by Noida authority and be held by a Committee as mentioned in the order. Investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation was also directed by Division Bench in the whole matter. The Division Bench directed draw of fresh lots by the Committee preferably within a period of four weeks. The order passed by the Division Bench was challenged before the apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6794-6795 of 2005, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Vs. Deepak Sharma as well as in Civil Appeal No. 6800-6801 of 2005, Deepak Sharma Vs. State of U.P. The apex Court passed an order staying the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. However, the Civil Appeal of the Noida was subsequently dismissed on 22.11.2007 on statements made on behalf of Noida to the effect that Noida has taken a decision to implement the decision of the High Court hence, the appeals are not pressed with a direction that appellant shall implement the direction of the High Court. The appeal filed by Deepak Sharma was dismissed as devoid of merit. Although the appeals were dismissed by apex Court on 22.11.2007 but the draw of lots was not held immediately. A writ petition being writ petition No. 3274 of 2008 Drappled Paper Industries and others Vs. State of U.P. was filed before this Court for a direction to the Committee appointed by the Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 5.10.2005, to immediately held fresh draw of lots. Several orders were passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. Time was taken by learned Advocate General to obtain instructions and inform the Court of the progress made. A request was made by the Chairman of the Committee which was appointed by the Division Bench to hold fresh draw of lots to grant two months' further time for holding draw of lots. Vide an order dated 12.9.2008, two months time was allowed by the Division Bench for holding fresh draw of lots. The fresh draw of lots could be held by the Committee appointed by the Division Bench on 8.11.2008. In pursuance of draw held on 8.11.2008, allotment letters were issued by the Noida authority to all the petitioners giving details of the plots allotted and due amount for payment. Rate of allotment per square meter for sector 44 was mentioned as Rs. 39,600/-. The amount was calculated and communicated to the petitioners for payment. The details of the allotment money, instalments and other charges were mentioned in the letters. The petitioners have come up in these writ petitions challenging the allotment letters. Similar reliefs have been claimed in all the writ petitions. It is sufficient to refer the reliefs claimed in writ petition No. 230 of 2009 which are as follows: " It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:- (i) quash the order of enhancement of rate/premium as communicated in letter of allotment dated 12/15.12.2008 (Annexure No. 4) of the petition. (ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to change the rate/premium as per terms notified in the Brochure in 2004. (iii) direct the respondents to handover the possession of the plot of land at the rate as notified in the Brochure issued in 2004. (iv) pass such other order or direction as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case." The petitioners have come to this Court challenging the amount demanded by the impugned allotment letters and they pray that premium of plots be charged as per the rates mentioned in the Scheme 2004 (1). For Sector 44, the premium of plot was mentioned in the brochure 2004(1) as Rs. 11,200/- per square meter whereas in the impugned allotment letter Rs. 39,600/- per square meter has been demanded.
(3.) WE have heard Sri V.B. Upadhyay, learned Senior Advocate, Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate, Sri K.K. Singh, Sri N.P. Singh for the petitioners and Sri Ravindra Kumar and Ramendra Pratap Singh for Noida authority. Sri M.C. Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has been heared for the State. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners are as follows: (i) Noida authority having invited application at the rate of Rs. 11,200/- per square meter for sector 44, the petitioners are entitled for allotment according to the rate as provided in the brochure. (ii) The first draw of lots held on 2.7.2005 was cancelled due to large scale irregularities and illegalities in draw of lots held by Noida authority themselves and subsequently draw of lots could be held only on 8.11.2008. The lapse is on the part of Noida authority itself and the petitioners cannot be saddled with the higher rates as mentioned in the allotment letters. The delay being not on the part of the petitioners, the Noida authority cannot take benefit of its own wrong. (iii) The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 5.10.2005 has directed for draw of fresh lots preferably within a period of one month. Noida authority itself challenged the said order and obtained stay order from the apex Court. Subsequently the appeal was got dismissed as not pressed on 22.11.2007 and even thereafter the lots were not drawn till 8.11.2008. The delay in drawing lots was due to inaction of Noida itself for which the petitioners cannot be held liable. (iv) No reasons have been given for escalation of price. No development has been carried out on the spot hence,the respondents are not entitled to escalate the price. Even the resolutions filed along with the counter affidavit of the Noida authority deciding to revise and enhance the price of land in Boards' meeting dated 28.3.2005, vide letter dated 17.7.2007 and in the Board meeting held on 1.5.2008 does not contain any reason for escalation of price. The escalation of price is wholly unjustified, arbitrary and malafide. Learned counsel appearing for Noida authority refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable since the writ petitions arise out of a contractual matter. The petitioners having agreed to abide by rates as revised by the Noida authority from time to time, has no locus to challenge the rates which have been demanded from the petitioners through the allotment letters. Clause 6 of the brochure clearly provides that increase in the allotment rates by the Noida authority, shall be acceptable to the applicants hence, there is no cause to challenge the rates which have been revised and increased. No rights accrued to the petitioners on draw of lots and the rights, if any could accrue only on issuance of allotment letter and the rates demanded through the allotment letters are the rates which are applicable on the date of issuance of the allotment letter. In case the petitioners do not agree to take the allotment on the rates as indicated in the allotment letters, they are free not to accept the allotment offers. No deliberate delay has been caused by the Noida Authority in holding the draw of lots. By judgment dated 5.10.2008, the Division Bench had appointed a committee of two officers of the State Government to conduct the draw of lots and conduct of draw of lots was not in the hands of Noida authority and the delay, if any in draw of lots was caused by the Committee since at one stage one of the officers of the Committee has requested to relieve himself from the conduct of draw of lots. The writ petition No. 3274 of 2008, Dappled Papers Industries (P) Ltd. and others Vs. State of U.P. and others was filed subsequent to the dismissal of the civil appeal by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 22.11.2007 with a direction to implement the judgment dated 5.10.2008 of this Court. The Division Bench itself noticed the cause of delay in holding of the draw of lots and vide order dated 12.9.2008 granted two months' time to the Chairman of the Committee to hold draw of lots and the draw of lots have been held within the period allowed by Division Bench on 12.9.2008. There is no delay in holding the draw of lots. The rate of land in different sectors including section 44 have been revised by the Noida authority from time to time which was within the power and jurisdiction of the authority. The petitioners are liable to make payment as applicable on the date of the allotment. There is no challenge to the different resolution of the Board i.e. decision dated 28.3.2005, 11.7.2007 and 8.5.2008 of the Noida authority revising the rates of plots in different sectors. The petitioners cannot be heard in complaining the revised rates of plots. The Noida authority is not responsible for any delay in draw of lots nor any malafide has been alleged against the Noida authority.;