GWALIOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER versus BHANU PRATAP SINGH

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 498 · Decided: 19-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
498
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 498
498
GWALIOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER
v.
BHANU PRATAP SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 8549 of 2014)
APRIL 19, 2023
[AJAY RASTOGI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Registered lease deed –
Alteration/amendment u/Article 226 – Impermissibility of – Appellants
invited bids in 1997 for grant of leases of different plots under the
transport city scheme – Respondent’s offer for 27887.50 sq. meters
@ Rs.725/- per sq. meter was accepted and the aforesaid plot area
was leased out in his favour for Rs.2,06,67,966/- to be paid in four
instalments after making the advance payment of Rs.15 lakhs as
earnest money – Instalments were to be deposited by October 1999 –
However, respondent deposited the final instalment in August 2005 –
After negotiations, lease deed was finally executed in March 2006
but for the reduced land of 18262.89 sq.meters rather than the
total land of 27887.50 sq. meters – Respondent filed writ petition
seeking mandamus against the appellants to execute the lease deed
for the remaining area of land i.e.9625.50 sq. meters – Allowed –
Correctness of – Held: Parties got the lease deed executed for
18262.89 sq. meters without demur in March 2006 and the
transaction which was initiated pursuant to the tender floated by
the appellant in 1997 stood concluded after execution of the lease
deed – Thus, after the transaction was concluded and the instrument
was registered u/s.17 of the Registration Act, it was not open to be
altered or amended even by the High Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction u/Article 226 – Mandamus issued by the High Court to
execute the lease deed for the remainder of the area is beyond
jurisdiction and contrary to law – Impugned judgment set aside–
Registration Act, 1908 – s.17.
Constitution of India – Article 14 – Violation of – Undue
indulgence granted by appellant-Authority – Held: There is no
justification as to what was the reason for the Authority to grant
undue indulgence to the respondent in depositing the instalments
which ought to have been deposited by 31.10.1999 but were
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
499
deposited upto 25.08.2005 – In the ordinary course of business,
the auction was supposed to be cancelled and the earnest money
deserved to be forfeited – Such exercise of power by the Authority
is a clear abuse of discretion which is not only violative of Art.14,
but also smacks of an undue favour which is always to be avoided
– Whenever there is such a business/commercial transaction, it is
always to be examined on the commercial principles where equity
has no role to play.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8549
of 2014.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.04.2011 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior in WP No. 2792 of 2009.
Sanjay Hegde, Sr. Adv., Rajesh Kandari, Vikrant Singh Bais, Advs.
for the Appellants.
Varun K. Chopra, Rohin Oza, Mehul Sharma, Dipu Jha, Harsh
Khabar, M/s VKC Law Offices, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RASTOGI, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order
dated 21st April, 2011 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior with the following directions:
i)
The Respondents are directed to execute the lease deed in
favour of the petitioner of remaining area of the land i.e.
9625.50 sq. mtr. in accordance with the acceptance of his
offer of total plot area 27887.50 sq. mtr.
ii)
The petitioner shall be liable to make payment of interest
from 17.8.2001 upto 29.3.2006 when the lease deed was
executed in favour of the petitioner excluding the period of
27.5.2004 to 29.3.2005.
iii)
The Respondents are at liberty to calculate the amount of
interest accordingly after verification of the amount which
has been paid by the petitioner.
iv)
The order be complied with within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
GWALIOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. v.
BHANU PRATAP SINGH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
500
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
2. The facts of the case culled out from the record are that the
appellants, according to the land disposal rules, issued an advertisement
and invited bids for grant of leases of different plots under the transport
city scheme. The respondent was also one of the bidders for MC-2
(Market Complex-2) plot area 27887.50 sq. meters. The offer of the
respondent @Rs.725/- per sq. meter being the highest b

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.