2021 INSC 0549
1
[NON­REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITON
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5799 OF 2021
New Okhla Industrial Development 
Authority & Ors  ..Appellant(s)
Versus
24 Oranges Lab LLP & Anr.                 ..Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   dated   31.07.2019   passed   by   the   High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition (C) No.27632
of   2014   by   which   the   High   Court   has   allowed   the   said   Writ
Petition   preferred   by   the   respondents   herein   –   original   writ
petitioners   by   which   the   High   Court   has   disposed   of   the   said
writ   petition   by   observing   that   in   view   of   the   subsequent

2
execution of the lease deed in favour of the respondents herein
­   original   writ   petitioners   on   21.10.2014   determining   the
market   value   of   the   plot   in   question   at   Rs.5900/­   per
sq.meter,   the   original   respondent   –   NOIDA   has   preferred   the
present appeal.
2. Shri   Sourav   Roy,   Learned   Counsel   has   appeared   on
behalf   of   the   appellants.     Learned   Advocate   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   appellants   has   vehemently   submitted   that   the
High   Court   has   materially   erred   in   disposing   of   the   writ
petition by observing that in view of the execution of the lease
deed dated 21.10.2014 in favour of the original writ petitioners
at Rs.5900/­ per sq.meter, it would prevail over the allotment
letter   dated   08.05.2014   and   therefore   the   writ   petition   no
longer survives.  
2.1 It is vehemently submitted by Learned counsel appearing
on  behalf of the appellants that  as such the lease deed dated
21.10.2014   in   favour   of   the   original   writ   petitioners   at
Rs.5900/­   per   sq.meter   was   pursuant   to   the   interim   order
passed   by   the   High   Court   dated   07.07.2014   in   writ   petition

3
and subject to the ultimate outcome of the main writ petition.
It   is   submitted   that   the   price   in   the   lease   deed   dated
21.10.2014 of Rs.5900/­ per sq.meter was interim and ad hoc
and   by   way   of   interim   measure   only   and   therefore   solely   on
that  basis  the  High   Court  is  not  justified in   observing   that   in
view   of   the   execution   of   the   lease   deed   dated   21.10.2014   it
would prevail over   the allotment order dated 08.05.2014.
2.2. Heavy   reliance   is   placed   on   the   interim   order   passed   by
the   High   Court   vide   order   dated   07.07.2014   passed   in   the
main   writ   petition   as   well  as   the  conditions   in   the   lease   deed
dated  21.10.2014  and  the   terms and   conditions  for   allotment
of industrial plot more particularly Clause 2(d) which provides
the rates of allotment stated in the allotment letter are subject
to   change   without   notice   and  that   the  rates  prevailing   on   the
date   of   issue   of   allotment   letter   would   be   applicable,
irrespective of the date of application and interview.
3. Present   appeal   is   vehemently   opposed   by   Shri   Sanjay
Kumar   Tyagi,   Learned   Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
respondents.

4
3.1 It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the
case   and   considering   the   fact   in   the   lease   deed   dated
21.10.2014  nothing   was  mentioned   that   the   lease  deed   dated
21.10.2014 is subject to the ultimate outcome of the main writ
petition   and/or   the   rates   mentioned   in   the   lease   deed   i.e.
Rs.5900/­ per  sq.meter is tentative and/or  ad hoc and it was
submitted   that   therefore   when   the   subsequent   execution   of
the   lease   deed   dated   21.10.2014   at   Rs.5900/­   per   sq.meter
was   final   for   all   purpose   and   conclusive,   the   High   Court   has
rightly observed that the said lease deed shall be binding upon
both   the   parties   and   therefore   the   High   Court   has   rightly
accepted the rate at Rs.5900/­ per sq.meter.
3.2 Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
has   also   tried   to   make   submission   on   merits   on   other   points
which   as   such   are   not   dealt   with   and/or   considered   by   the
High Court at all.   And for the reasons stated hereinbelow we
propose   to   remand   the   matter   to   the   High   Court   for   fresh
consideration of the original writ petition.  We therefore do not
enter   any   further   on   merits   and/or   the   submissions   by

5
Learned   counsels   appearing   for   the   respective   parties   on
merits.
4. Having   heard   Learned   counsels   appearing   for   the
respective   parties   and   considering   the   impugned   judgment
and order passed by the High Court, we are of the opinion that
the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is
unsustainable.
4.1 The   High   Court   has   disposed   of   the   main   writ   petition
accepting   the   rate   at   Rs.5900/­   per   sq.meter   solely   on   the
basis   of   the   subsequent   lease   deed   executed   in   favour   of   the
petitioners   on   21.10.2014   and   treating   the   said   lease  deed   at
Rs.5900/­   per   sq.meter   as   binding   between   the   parties.
However,   the   High   Court   has   not   at   all   appreciated   and/or
considered   the   fact   that   the   rate   of   Rs.5900/­   per   sq.meter
was fixed by the NOIDA as mentioned in the lease deed in view
of the interim order passed by the High Court vide order dated
07.07.2014   which   as   such   was   by   way   of   interim   measure.
Interim   order   dated   07.07.2014   in   Writ   Petition   No.27632   of
2014 reads as under:

6
“ Sri   Shivam   Yadav   has   accepted   notice   for   the
respondents Authority. 
The   petitioner   has   come   up   questioning   the   action   of
the  respondents   in calling   upon the  petitioner  to deposit  an
enhanced   amount   in   respect   of   the   allotment   of   a
commercial plot. 
The   dispute   was  occasioned   on  account   of  the  refusal
to   make   allotment   to   the   petitioner   and   the   petitioner
approached   this   Court   by   filing   Writ   Petition   No.52933   of
2010,   which   was   allowed   on   11.10.2013.   A   copy   of   the
judgment has been filed as Annexure 10 to the writ petition.
Para   25   of   the   said   judgment   categorically   set   aside   the
earlier   refusal   and   directed   the   authority   to   consider   the
application   of   the   petitioner   in   the   light   of   the   observations
made therein.
  The respondent­Authority appears to have questioned
the correctness of the said decision by filing a Special Leave
to Appeal which was dismissed on 24.3.2014, a copy whereof
is annexed as Annexure 11 to the writ petition. 
In the aforesaid  background  the  respondent­Authority
has now proceeded to allot the said plot to the petitioner but
on an enhanced rate. 
Sri   Ravi   Kiran   Jain,   learned   senior   counsel   for   the
petitioner,   submits   that   this   enhancement   is   absolutely
uncalled   for   and   the   respondents   are   not   bound   to   realise
the enhanced amount in terms of clause 2(d) of the scheme.
For   this   he   has   invited   the   attention   of   the   Court   to   the
judgment interpartes. 
Sri   Shivam   Yadav   prays   that   he   may   be   granted   time
to   file   a   counter   affidavit   in   order   to   meet   the   aforesaid
argument. 
In   the   aforesaid   circumstances,   we   provide   as   an
interim measure that the allotment of the petitioner shall be
made at the rate of Rs.5900/­ per sq. mt. and the petitioner

7
shall   deposit   the   amount   accordingly   with   the   respondents.
This   arrangement   is   an   interim   measure   during   the
pendency of the writ petition. 
So far as the dispute of the balance enhanced amount
is concerned, the same shall be settled and disposed of after
exchange of affidavits. 
Three   weeks'   time   is   granted   to   file   counter   affidavit.
Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within one week thereafter.”
4.2 The   High   Court   has   not   at   all   appreciated   the   fact   that
the   lease   deed   dated   21.10.2014   was   followed   by   the   interim
order dated 07.07.2014 in which it was specifically mentioned
that the rate at Rs.5900/­ per sq.meter shall be as an interim
measure.     In   order   dated   07.07.2014,   it   has   been   specifically
observed   that   so   far   as   the   dispute   of   the   balance   enhanced
amount   is   concerned,  the   same  shall   be  settled  and   disposed
of   after   exchange   of  affidavits.   In   that   view  of   the  matter   the
High   Court   has   erred   in   observing   that   the   rate   of   Rs.5900/­
per   sq.meter   mentioned   in   the   lease   deed   dated   21.10.2014
shall be conclusive and final and binding between the parties.
What was ordered by way of interim measure cannot be said to
be final and conclusive between the parties. In that view of the
matter the High Court has erred in disposing of the main writ

8
petition   by   observing   that   the   rate   at   Rs.5900/­   per   sq.meter
mentioned   in   the   lease   deed   dated   21.10.2014   shall   be   final
and   conclusive   between   the   parties   and   the   same   shall   over
ride   the   conditions   mentioned   in   the   allotment   order   dated
08.05.2014.   The High Court has disposed of the writ petition
solely   on   the   basis   of   the   execution   of   the   lease   deed   dated
21.10.2014   at   Rs.5900/­   per   sq.meter   which   as   observed
hereinabove  was only  by  way  of  interim   measure pursuant   to
the interim order dated 08.05.2014 passed by the High Court
vide   order   dated   07.07.2014.     The   High   Court   has   not   at   all
considered   other   aspects,   if   any,   on   merits.     Therefore,   the
matter is required to be remitted to the High Court to consider
the writ petition afresh in accordance with law and on its own
merits and considering the observations made hereinabove.  
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above the
impugned   judgment   and   order   dated   07.07.2014   passed   by
the   High   Court   holding   that   the   rate   mentioned   in   the   lease
deed   dated   21.10.2014   at   Rs.5900/­   sq.meter   is   final   and
conclusive  and  binding  between the  parties and  consequently

9
disposing   of   the   main   writ   petition   is   quashed   and   set   aside.
It   is   observed   that   the   rate   at   Rs.5900/­   per   sq.meter
mentioned   in   the   lease   deed  dated  21.10.2014  was   by  way   of
interim measure only pursuant to the interim order passed by
the High Court dated 07.07.2014.   As the High Court has not
at   all   considered   the   writ   petition   on   merits,   we   remit   the
matter   to   the   High   Court   for   fresh   consideration   of   the   main
writ   petition   on   merits.     Writ   Petition   (C)   No.27632   of   2014
before the High Court is ordered to be restored to the file of the
High   Court   which   shall   be   disposed   of   by   the   High   Court   at
the earliest and preferably within a period of six months from
the date of the receipt of the present order.  
6. The present appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid
extent however there shall be no order as to costs.
………………………………… J.
              (M. R. SHAH)
………………………………… J.
      (A.S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi;
September 21, 2021