SKYLINE CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD. & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 10 S.C.R. 589 · Decided: 09-07-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 10 S.C.R. 589 
--
~ 
SKYLINE CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD. & ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4272 OF 2008 
JULY 9, 2008 
'B 
[A.K. MATHUR AND. ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
URBAN DEVELOPMENT 
Cancellation of allotment of plot for non-payment by al-
lottee -Allottee not making deposits within the time stipulated c 
in the allotment order -Deposits made after a gap of two and , 
half years - Development Authority canceling the allotment . 
and making fresh allotment in favour of another person - High 
Court upholding the cancellation - Held: Allottee having failed . 
to make the payment within stipulated period and meanwhile . D 
third party interests having intervened and a fresh allotment , 
order made in favour of another person, order of High Court, 
needs no interference. 
The appellants made an application for allotment of E 
a plot admea~uring 8,000 square meter and made an ini-
tial deposit of Rs.13,20,000/-. On 17.4.2003, an order of al-' 
lotment was issued in favour of the appellants requiring 
them to deposit 25% of the premium amount with respon-
" • 
dent-Development Authority within 60 days. It was further 
~ 
mentioned in the order that if the required amount was 
F 
not deposited within the specified period, applicants' ear-
nest money would be forfeited. The balance 75% of the 
premium amount was required to be deposited in ten 
equal half-yearly instalments. The appellants did not de-
posit any amount for a period of 2% years after receipt of G 
' t 'i 
the allotment letters. On 3.5.2005, the respondent Devel-
opment Authority asked the appellant to produce receipt;s 
of deposits, if any, made in pursuance of the allotmef'.lt 
letter. Three months after receiving the said letter, the ap-
589 
H 
590 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 
A pellants started making deposits in September 2005. The 
Development Authority cancelled the allotment by order 
dated 21.6.2006 on the ground that the appellant had failed 
to make the deposits in accordance with the terms and 
conditions of allotment. The appellants filed a writ peti-
8 tion before the High Court contending that the respon-
dent Development Authority having accepted the depos-
its was estopped from canceling the allotment. The stand 
of the respondents was that since the appellant failed to 
deposit any amount other than the initial deposit of 
c Rs.1·3,20,000/- within the time stipulated in the allotment 
order and unilaterally deposited the amounts two and half 
years after the al'lotment order was made, the appellants 
were not entitled to any relief; and that since third party 
interests had intervened and fresh allotment of the plot 
0 
had been made in favour of respondent no.5, the reliefs 
sought for by the appellants in the writ petition could not 
been granted. The allottees having failed in the writ peti-
tion before the High Court, filed the instant appeal. 
E 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The appellants did not make any deposits, 
other than the initial deposit of R~.13,20,000/-, in terms of 
the allotment order for a period of 2 % years from the said 
order, and made deposits unilaterally only after a com-
munication was received from the respondent-Develop-
F ment Authority asking for proof of deposits, if any, made. 
The reason given for not making the deposits, as per the 
allotment order, is not very convincing. Since the depos-
its subsequently made by the appellants were not ac-
cepted by the respondent-Development Authority and, 
G particularly, when third party interests have intervened and 
a fresh allotment order has been made in favour of re-
spondent No.5 and no prayer has been made in the writ 
petition for setting aside such allotment, the appellants 
are not entitled to the relief claimed. However, the appel-
H lants wiil be entitled to withdraw the deposits made by 
, 
' 
•
•./ 
>,- . 
SKYLINE CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD. & ANR v. STATE 591 
OF U.P. & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR,J.] 
--
~ 
them towards the balance of the premium amount [para 
A 
17-19] [598-A,B,C,D,E] 
R.K. Saxena v. Delhi Development Authority AIR 2002 
SC 2340; and Teri Oat Estates(P) Limited v. U. T Chandigarh 
and another 2004 (2) sec 130 - held inapplicable. 
B 
-+ 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4272 
of 2008 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 18/4/2007 of 
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No. 51537/ 
2006 
0 
Shail Kr. Dwivedi, A.AG. Arun Bhardawaj, Dr. AM. Singhvi, 
Ratnakar Dash, Mahesh Agar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.