LexHARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION versus VEENA SHARMA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 1115
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
A
j
CORPORATION
v.
VEENA SHARMA & ORS.
(Review Petition No.1006 of 2008)
In
B
S.L.P. (Civil) No. 20155 of 2006.
JULY 16, 2009
[S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.]
c
CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950:
Article 137 - Review of ,judgment/orders by Supreme
Court - Held: In modification of the orders dated 19th
February, 2008 and 20th Febru_ary, 2008 passed by the Court,
D
it is directed that the extension of the period for completion
of construction project shall be governed by the terms and
conditions mentioned in the respective letters of allotment of
plots and as noticed in the order - Industrial Development -
Allotment of plots.
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition (C)
No.1006 of 2008.
In
S.L.P. (Civil) No. 20155 of 2006.
F
From the Judgment & Order dated 20.2.2008 of this Court
in SLP (Civil) No. 20155 of 2006.
WITH
R.P. {C) No. 1018 of 2008 in SLP (C) 16893 of 2006.
G
R.P. (C) No. 1171 of 2008 in SLP (C) 18080 of 2006.
R.P. (C) No. 1317 of 2008 in SLP (C) 19522 of 2006.
1115
H
1116
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 10 S.C.R.
A R.P. (C) No. 1787 of 2008 in SLP (C) 16707 of 2006.
A. Sharan, ASG, Ravindra Bana, Puneet Bali, Prabhjeet,
Jauhar, Hittan Nehra, S.S. Jauhar, S.K. Mishra, Dr. S.K. Verma,
Ashutosh, Kavita Wadia, Pawan S. Bindra, Varuna Bhandari
B Gugnani, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Subramonium Prasad,
Praveen Agrawal and Ajay Pal for the appearing parties.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
ORDER
c
5.B. SINHA, J. 1. These applications have been filed by
the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation for
review of judgments and orders dated 19.2.2008 and
20.2.2008.
D
2. In effect and substance, these review applications are
confined to interpretation of one of the directions issued by this
•
Court relying on or on the basis of the statements made by Mr.
Sharan, learned Senior Counsel at the time of hearing.
We may notice the same:
E
"In all these cases, it is difficult to uphold the order of the
High Court. But a general offer was made by the.learned
Additional Solicitor General that those who intend to obtain
reallotment of plot may do so on payment of the price as
F
per the current rate as on the date of the order of the High
Court.
Before us, several allottees had categorically made
a statement that they are ready and willing to pay the
prevailing price as fixed by the appellant- Corporation.
G
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this cases,
we are of the opinion that in the event, respondents offer
the prevailing price as on the date of judgment of the High
Court, the plot, in question, shall stand re-allotted and
should be subject to the same terms and conditions. Such
H
reallotment may be made even in cases where we have
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
1117
CORPORATION v. VEENA SHARMA [S.S. SINHA, J.]
found the order of the High Court to be unsustainable.
A
Respondents shall deposit the amount within six
weeks from date. Appellant shall hand over the
possession of the plot, in question, within four weeks
thereafter. The highest executive of Appellant - Corporation
8
shall see to it that the order of this Court is complied with.
It is, however, made clear that in the event of failure on the
part of the respondents concerned in making payment in
terms of this order, it would be open to the appellant to take
recourse to such action as is permissible in law.
3. Mr. Sharan pointed out that the offer made by him on
behalf of the Corporation was considered by this Court in its
order dated 20th February 2008 passed initially in SLP (C) No.
19522 of 2006, which reads as under:
"SLP (C) 19522/2006
c
D
Another submission was made by Mr. P.S. Patwalia,
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent that his client is ready and willing to accept the
offer of the petitioner that fresh letter of allotment may be
E
issued at the prevailing rate as on the date of the passing
of the judgment of the High Court i.e. Rs.12,500/- per sq.
meter which having been accepted by Mr. A. Sharan,
learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf
of the petitioner, we direct that the Special Leave Petition
be disposed of on the afore-mentioned terms.
F
It is accepted at the Bar that consequent upon
issuance of fresh letter allotment, the respondent would be
getting three years time to complete the construction
project anExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.