THE RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION & ANR. versus DIAMOND AND GEM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2013] 4 S.C.R. 331 · Decided: 12-02-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 10 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 4 S.C.R. 331 
THE RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 
A 
AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION & ANR. 
v. 
DIAMOND AND GEM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 
LTD. & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7252-7253 of 2003) 
B 
FEBRUARY 12, 2013 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Rajasthan State Industrial & Investment Corporation 
C 
Limited (Disposal of Land) Rules, 1979 - r.24 - Land notified 
for public purpose - Possession of land taken over by the 
State Government and handed over to appellant-Rf/CO -
Appellant allotted the land to respondent-company, to 
facilitate establishment of an Industrial Estate - Lease deed 
D 
executed between appellant and respondent-company -
- Respondent-company asked the appellant to provide it 
accessibility via an approach road and, as the same was not 
provided, it filed writ petition seeking such approach/access 
road - Meanwhile, on ground of non-completion of project 
E 
within stipulated period, the appellant cancelled the lease 
deed and took back possession of the land -
Same 
challenged by respondent-company by filing another writ 
petition - High Court allowed both the writ petitions - On 
appeal, held: The allotment was made on "as-is- where-is" 
F 
basis which was accepted by respondent-company without 
any protest - Terms of the lease deed made it clear that no 
obligation was placed upon the appellant to provide to the 
respondent the access road - As per the lease deed, the 
entire project was to be completed within five years, but G 
construction was made just on a fraction of the entire land -
The lease deed also contemplated that, the lessee will not 
transfer nor sub-let nor relinquish rights without prior 
permission from the appellant - However, respondent-
331 
H 
332 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 4 S.C.R. 
A company had negotiated with a third party for development 
of the land - Cancellation of allotment was made by appellant 
in exercise of its power under Rule 24 of the 1979 Rules read 
with the terms of the lease agreement - Respondent-
company did not resort to any of the statutory remedies, rather 
B preferred a writ petition which could not have been entertained 
by the High Court - High Court erred in treating the whole 
case to be governed only under the 1959 Rules, and in 
holding that the 1979 Rules had no application at all - It 
further mis-interpreted the amendment to Rule 11-A of the 
c 1959 Rules and decided the case on speculative and 
hypothetical reasons - Order of cancellation of allotment in 
favour of respondent-company accordingly restored -
Rajasthan Land Revenue (Industrial area allotment) Rules, 
1959 - r.11-A - Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 - ss. 
0 4and6. 
Contract - Terms and conditions - Interpretation - Held: 
The contract is to be interpreted giving the actual meaning 
to the words contained in the contract -It is not permissible 
for the court to make a new contract, however reasonable, if 
E the parties have not made it themselves. 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Contractual 
disputes and writ jurisdiction - Held: Generally the court 
should not exercise its writ jurisdiction to enforce contractual 
F obligation. 
G 
H 
Doctrines I Principles - Doctrine of estoppel by election 
- Basis of - Equity. 
Words and Phrases - "as-is-where-is" - Meaning of. 
Words and Phrases - "as if' - Meaning of - Rajasthan 
Land Revenue (Industrial area allotment) Rules, 1959- r.11A 
(as amended). 
Words and Phrases - "mutatis mutandis" - Meaning of 
RAJASTHAN STATE IND. DEV. AND INT CORPN. v. DIAMOND 333 
AND GEM DEV. CORPN. LTD. 
- Rajasthan Land Revenue (Industrial area allotment) Rules, 
A 
1959 - r.11A (as amended). 
Land was notified for a public purpose i.e. industrial 
development under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land 
Acquisition Act, 1953. Declaration under Section 6 of the 8 
Act was also made and possession of the land, was 
taken over by the State Government and handed over to 
appellant-RllCO. Appellant made allotment of land to 
respondent no.1-company, to facilitate the establishment 
of a Gem Industrial Estate. A lease deed was executed 
between the appellant and respondent-company with a C 
stipulation that the land was allotted on "as is-where-is" 
basis, and that the respondent-company must complete 
the said project within a period of 5 years. The 
respondent-company asked the appellant to provide it 
accessibility via an approach road and, as the same was D 
not provided, the respondent-company filed Writ Petitio

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