HAMPSHIRE HOTELS AND RESORTS (NOIDA) PVT. LTD versus RITU MAHESHWARI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOIDA)

Citation: [2021] 2 S.C.R. 238 · Decided: 09-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
238
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
   [2021] 2 S.C.R. 238
238
HAMPSHIRE HOTELS AND RESORTS (NOIDA) PVT. LTD.
v.
RITU MAHESHWARI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(NOIDA)
(Contempt Petition (Civil) No.413 of 2019)
in
(Civil Appeal No.4564 of 2008)
MARCH 09, 2021
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDU MALHOTRA AND
KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Contempt – Allotment of hotel sites by New Okhla Industrial
Development Authority (NOIDA) to various allottees to cater to the
demand for hotels around Commonwealth Games, 2010 – Allotments
eventually cancelled – Challenged by allottees – Writ petitions
allowed, cancellation order set aside – High Court remanded the
matter for taking fresh decision – Order of remand challenged by
the allottees by filing Special Leave Petitions – By interim order, the
State Government was permitted to give hearing to the concerned
allottees and pass a reasoned order – State Government decided to
cancel the allotments made by NOIDA – Challenged in pending
SLPs– By judgment dtd. 05.07.11, Supreme Court inter alia found
that the lease given to the allottees were legal and valid; allottees
were given option to continue their respective leases by paying higher
premium or to withdraw if unwilling to continue – Petitioners herein
exercised the option to continue their respective leases by paying
the premium– Contempt petitions filed alleging that despite such
deposits no supplementary deed was executed – Held: Plots were
meant for five-star and three-star hotels which were to come up
well-in-time to cater to the demand for hotels around Commonwealth
Games, 2010 – It has been more than 10 years since the Games got
over but no development on these plots has occurred – Present status
is nothing but a stalemate in which valuable assets of a public
authority are locked completely – Two options were suggested vide
order of this Court dtd.05.09.19 to resolve the disputes between the
parties – Petitioners are willing to exercise the second option
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
239
contemplating sale of the plots after resumption by NOIDA, and
payment to them from and out of the sale proceeds – Modalities
suggested by the second option could yield results favourable to
both sides, and at the same time would take care of public interest
as well – Second Option given in the Order dated 05.09.2019
modified – U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
Disposing of the Contempt Petitions, the Court
HELD : 1.1 Two options were suggested in the Order dated
05.09.2019. those options were:-
“All the contempt petitioners-allottees shall pay up all the
amounts that are due alongwith the accrued interest on or before
31.12.2019, whereafter, NOIDA shall execute a supplementary
lease deed in favour of the contempt petitioners-allottees.
OR
The plots in question which were allotted to the contempt
petitioners-allottees be resumed by NOIDA and put up for fresh
auction, and from and out of the proceeds the money deposited
by each of the contempt petitioners-allottees be returned by the
NOIDA along with interest @ 11% p.a.” [Para 9][253-H;
254-A-C]
1.2 The facts set out in paragraphs of the Judgment dated
05.07.2011 indicate that the plots in the instant case were meant
for five-star and three-star hotels which were to come up well-in-
time to cater to the demand for hotels around Commonwealth
Games, 2010. It has been more than 10 years since the Games
got over but no development on these plots has occurred. The
tussle is going on between the Petitioners on one side who submit
that because of indifferent and recalcitrant attitude on part of the
authorities, they could not enter into any arrangement for financial
accommodation, and as such, no development could be
undertaken; while on the other hand, the submission on part of
NOIDA is that unless the payment of premium in entirety was
made, no lease could be executed. Each side is blaming the other
and the resultant effect is that the properties are lying
undeveloped, no payment of premium is forthcoming and the
public interest is not getting subserved. It was in this background
HAMPSHIRE HOTELS AND RESORTS (NOIDA) PVT. LTD. v. RITU
MAHESHWARI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
240
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
that the Second Option was suggested so that the Petitioners
are allowed to withdraw themselves from the arrangement and,
at the same time, the interest of NOIDA is also well secured.
Submissions were advanced on the basis of what weighe

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