HAMPSHIRE HOTELS AND RESORTS (NOIDA) PVT. LTD versus RITU MAHESHWARI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOIDA) on 9 March 2021

238

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R. 238

[2021] 2 S.C.R.

AHAMPSHIRE HOTELS AND RESORTS (NOIDA) PVT. LTD.

v.

RITU MAHESHWARI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(NOIDA)

B

(Contempt Petition (Civil) No.413 of 2019)

in

(Civil Appeal No.4564 of 2008)

MARCH 09, 2021

C[UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDU MALHOTRA ANDKRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]

Contempt – Allotment of hotel sites by New Okhla IndustrialDevelopment Authority (NOIDA) to various allottees to cater to thedemand for hotels around Commonwealth Games, 2010 – AllotmentsDeventually cancelled – Challenged by allottees – Writ petitionsallowed, cancellation order set aside – High Court remanded thematter for taking fresh decision – Order of remand challenged bythe allottees by filing Special Leave Petitions – By interim order, theState Government was permitted to give hearing to the concernedEallottees and pass a reasoned order – State Government decided tocancel the allotments made by NOIDA – Challenged in pendingSLPs– By judgment dtd. 05.07.11, Supreme Court inter alia foundthat the lease given to the allottees were legal and valid; allotteeswere given option to continue their respective leases by paying higherpremium or to withdraw if unwilling to continue – Petitioners hereinFexercised the option to continue their respective leases by paying the premium– Contempt petitions filed alleging that despite suchdeposits no supplementary deed was executed – Held: Plots weremeant for five-star and three-star hotels which were to come upwell-in-time to cater to the demand for hotels around CommonwealthGGames, 2010 – It has been more than 10 years since the Games gotover but no development on these plots has occurred – Present statusis nothing but a stalemate in which valuable assets of a publicauthority are locked completely – Two options were suggested videorder of this Court dtd.05.09.19 to resolve the disputes between theparties – Petitioners are willing to exercise the second optionH

contemplating sale of the plots after resumption by NOIDA, andpayment to them from and out of the sale proceeds – Modalitiessuggested by the second option could yield results favourable toboth sides, and at the same time would take care of public interestas well – Second Option given in the Order dated 05.09.2019modified – 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 dated05.09.2019. those options were:- “All the contempt petitioners-allottees shall pay up all theamounts that are due alongwith the accrued interest on or before31.12.2019, whereafter, NOIDA shall execute a supplementarylease deed in favour of the contempt petitioners-allottees.

OR

The plots in question which were allotted to the contemptpetitioners-allottees be resumed by NOIDA and put up for freshauction, and from and out of the proceeds the money depositedby each of the contempt petitioners-allottees be returned by theNOIDA along with interest @ 11% p.a.” [Para 9][253-H;254-A-C]

1.2 The facts set out in paragraphs of the Judgment dated05.07.2011 indicate that the plots in the instant case were meantfor five-star and three-star hotels which were to come up well-in-time to cater to the demand for hotels around CommonwealthGames, 2010. It has been more than 10 years since the Gamesgot over but no development on these plots has occurred. Thetussle is going on between the Petitioners on one side who submitthat because of indifferent and recalcitrant attitude on part of theauthorities, they could not enter into any arrangement for financialaccommodation, and as such, no development could beundertaken; while on the other hand, the submission on part ofNOIDA is that unless the payment of premium in entirety wasmade, no lease could be executed. Each side is blaming the otherand the resultant effect is that the properties are lyingundeveloped, no payment of premium is forthcoming and thepublic interest is not getting subserved. It was in this background A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athat the Second Option was suggested so that the Petitionersare 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 weighed withthis Court when the Judgment dated 05.07.2011 was passed,where this Court had given the facility of withdrawal from theBarrangement to such of the allottees who were unwilling tocontinue. In that case, the concerned allottees were allowed towithdraw all the amounts including the stamp duty and registrationcharges along with interest @ 18% per annum. This aspect ofthe matter has been pressed into service on behalf of theCPetitioners to submit that they were willing to forego the amountsindicated at Sl. Nos. 1, 5 and 6 of the illustrative chart quoted inthe Order dated 17.09.2019 and as such the offer on part of NOIDAto refund the deposited amounts, after deducting 30% of thepremium amount without payment of any interest, would not befair, if the current prices of the lands in the area were to be takenDinto account. It was also submitted that the fault actually lies withNOIDA in not permitting the Petitioners to enter into financialaccommodation, and thus no development could take place. Thesesubmissions are undoubtedly refuted by the learned counsel forNOIDA. The present status is nothing but a stalemate in whichEvaluable assets of a public authority are locked completely. Thepublic interest is neither getting subserved, nor is NOIDAgetting instalments towards premium on time. This Court askedthe learned counsel for NOIDA if any proceedings for resumptionof land were undertaken, to which the response was in thenegative. In this situation, the modalities suggested by the SecondFOption could yield results which would be favourable to bothsides, and at the same time would take care of public interest aswell. However, considering the price index which is availablethrough the bid as described in the communication dated21.10.2019, and keeping the interest of NOIDA in forefront, theGmodalities stated hereafter, will take care of public interest andcompeting claims of both sides. Before coming to the modalities,certain aspects need to be clarified including what amounts thePetitioners would be entitled to:- H

A] From the illustrative chart, which was quoted in theOrder dated 17.09.2019, the claims with regard to amountsmentioned against Sl. Nos.1, 5 and 6 were given up by thePetitioners.

B] As regards stamp duty, the stand of NOIDA is that themoney was not paid to NOIDA but was paid to the StateGovernment, and, therefore, NOIDA cannot be made to refundthe amount towards stamp duty. Since the State Government isnot party to the present matter, no direction in that behalf can beissued, and the matter shall have to be left to the StateGovernment to consider whether there could be refund of stampduty either in full, or in part.

C] Rest of the amounts comprise of two types of payments:a) towards instalments of premium; and b) towards payment oflease rent. [Paras 17-19][259-B-H; 260-A-F]

1.3 As regards lease rent, it is evident from the chart in theOrder dated 17.09.2019 that an amount of Rs.44,84,000/- waspaid by the Petitioner by way of lease rent on 06.03.2007 andone-time lease rent amounting to Rs.5,37,24,000/- was paid on11.05.2007. One-time lease rent constitutes payment for theentirety of the period of lease covered by the document.Therefore, that component of the amount which represents theremainder period after the plot is sold in terms of this Order,ought not to be charged by NOIDA from the Petitioners. If theplot is re-sold, the new allottee, in any case, will be paying inrespect of such remainder period under a fresh lease executedin his favour. The Petitioners shall, therefore, be entitled to refundof that component of amount of one-time lease rent whichproportionately represents the remainder period after the plotsin question are sold in terms of this Order. They shall not,however, be entitled to any interest on such component. Theamount of interest on refund of the amounts paid towards premiumthat the Petitioners would be entitled to was subject matter ofdiscussion on the earlier occasion. By order dated 17.09.2019 itwas found that the appropriate rate of interest could be 7% perannum. The Petitioners would, therefore, be entitled to 7% annual A

BC

DE

F

G

H

Ainterest on the amounts deposited by them towards premium fromtime to time. These amounts payable towards interest shall becalculated upto 30.04.2021 and shall stand frozen as on that date.[Paras 20, 21][260-G-H; 261-A-D]

1.4 In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the revisedBSecond Option shall be as under:-

A) The concerned plots allotted to the Petitioners be soldby NOIDA by inviting E-bids or by auction after advertising thesame as was done in the Scheme No.2019-20 (Commercial BuilderPlot-I)C

B) If the price quoted in such E-bid for each of theconcerned plots is more than one and a half times of the price atwhich the arrangement with the Petitioners was arrived at; thatis to say, more than Rs.1,05,000 per sq. metre, the Petitionersbe returned the amounts deposited towards premium in each case.DHowever, in case there is shortfall as against the rate ofRs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre, the shortfall shall be made good bythe Petitioners and to that extent the amount payable to thePetitioners towards refund of amount paid towards premium shallstand reduced.

EC) Insofar as refund of amounts towards remainder part ofthe lease rent and the component of interest payable to each of thePetitioners are concerned, said amounts shall be made over onlyif the price received by NOIDA in fresh sale of said plots in termsof this Order is in excess of Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre and onlyto the extent of excess beyond Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre.F

D) The Petitioners shall, thus, first be made over thecomponent representing the amount paid by them towardspremium in the manner as stated above. It is only if the ratefetched in such re-sale is greater than Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metrethat the Petitioners shall be paid amounts towards the remainderGpart of the lease rent and component of interest payable, as statedhereinabove; subject always to the requirement that theseamounts are paid from the amounts representing the excessabove the base price of Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre; which will AB

ensure that NOIDA will always get a base rate of Rs.1,05,000/-per sq. metre for the concerned plot in such re-sale. If the excessamount beyond Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre is not sufficient toabsorb the amounts payable to the Petitioners towards componentof lease rent and the interest; their entitlement shall standreduced to that extent. It is also made clear that if the differencebetween the base price of Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre and theprice fetched in the re-sale is greater than what would be payabletowards component of lease rent and interest, NOIDA alone shallbe entitled to such excess amount.

E] By way of illustration:-

C

(a) If the price quoted in E-bid or auction for a plot of 20,000sq. metre is at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per sq. metre, the shortfallwill be Rs.5,000/- x 20,000/- (extent of plot) = Rs.10 Crores. Thus,Rs.10 Crores shall be deducted from the deposited amounttowards premium and the balance shall be refunded. Since theprice quoted in E – bid or auction is less than Rs.1,05,000/- persq. metre, nothing shall be payable towards remainder part ofthe lease rent and the component of interest.

D

(b) If the price quoted in E – bid or auction is at the rate ofRs.1,20,000/- per sq. metre, the amount to be received by NOIDAbeyond the level of Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre for the same plotshall be Rs.15,000/- x 20,000/- (extent of plot) = Rs.30 Crores.As the price quoted is more than Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre:-

(i) The entire amount deposited towards premium shallbe refunded by NOIDA; and F

(ii) So much of the amount representing remainder partof the lease rent and component of interest which canbe assorbed from and out of Rs.30 Crores shall berefunded but not beyond Rs.30 Crores.

(iii) Thus, if the amount representing remainder part ofGthe lease rent and the component of interest is greaterthan Rs.30 Crores, the entitlement shall be only uptoRs.30 Crores and not in excess thereof. However, ifsuch amount payable towards these two heads is less H

244SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Athan Rs.30 Crores, the amount shall be paid in fulland the balance shall be retained by NOIDA.

(F) In the process, NOIDA will always get minimum ofRs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre in such re-sale.

G] After the concerned plots are sold in auction andBappropriate documents are executed in favour of the newallottees, the concerned Petitioners shall be entitled to apply tothe State Government for refund of amounts paid by them towardsStamp Duty. Such applications shall be considered by the StateGovernment in accordance with the extant policy and inaccordance with law.C

The modality devised above will ensure that as against thepromised rate of Rs.70,000 per sq. metre, which premium is alsoin arrears in the present cases, NOIDA shall get much more thanthat towards price of land and will also stand to gain considerably.Accordingly, in the process, not only will the public interest standDsubserved, but the projects which have run into stalemate, willalso come out of difficulties. The Second Option given in the Orderdated 05.09.2019 shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent.Further directions issued. [Paras 22-24][261-D-H; 262-A-H;263-A-H]EITC Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.(2011) 7SCC 493 : [2011] 7 SCR 66 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

[2011] 7 SCR 66referred toPara 1

FINHERENT JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (C) No. 413of 2019 in Civil Appeal No. 4564 of 2008.

Petition filed for disobedience of the judgment and order dated05.07.2011 passed by this court in Civil Appeal No. 4564 of 2008 andCivil Appeal Nos.4570 of 2008, 4968 of 2008, 4566 of 2008, 4565 of2008, 4571 of 2008, 4569 of 2008G

With

Contempt Petition (Civil) No.416 of 2019 in Civil Appeal No.4570of 2008, Contempt Petition (Civil) No.415 of 2019 in Civil Appeal No.4968of 2008, Contempt Petition (Civil) No.414 of 2019 in Civil Appeal No.4566Hof 2008, Contempt Petition (Civil) No.645 of 2019 in Civil Appeal No.4565

HAMPSHIRE HOTELS AND RESORTS (NOIDA) PVT. LTD. v. RITUMAHESHWARI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, of 2008, Contempt Petition (Civil) No.646 of 2019 in Civil Appeal No.4571of 2008, Contempt Petition (Civil) No.647 of 2019 in Civil Appeal No.4569of 2008.

Mukul Rohatagi, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Puri, Anuj P. Agarwala, SarthakGupta, Hardeep Singh, Pramod B. Agarwala, Advs. for the Petitioner.

Ravindra Kumar, Adv. for the Contemnor.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.

1. These Contempt Petitions allege infraction on part of NOIDA,the Respondent-Authority in not obeying the directions issued by thisCourt in its Judgment and Order dated 05.07.2011 in Civil Appeal No.4564of 2008[1] and all other connected matters; and seek issuance of directionsto NOIDA to execute a fresh lease deed/supplementary lease deed asdetailed in the aforesaid Judgment and Order dated 05.07.2011 and forrescheduling of the balance land premium/instalments.

2. The basic facts in the backdrop of which the presentproceedings have arisen, were set out in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9of the Judgment dated 05.07.2011 as under:- “3. At the 135th meeting of the Board of Directors/Members ofNOIDA Authority (for short ‘NOIDA Board’) held on 5.6.2006,the said State Policy dated 22.5.2006 to attract more capitalinvestment in tourism/hotel industry was considered. The NOIDABoard resolved to implement the said policy in the areas fallingwithin its jurisdiction and apply the rates applicable to its Industrialarea (Phase I) to the plots to be allotted to the hotel industry. Therate referred was the reserve rate of Rs.7400/- per sq.m.applicable to Industrial Area (Phase I) plots, fixed by the NOIDABoard at its meeting held on 20.3.2006.

4. The resolution also mentioned that the implementation of thesaid policy should ensure construction of sufficient hotels beforethe Commonwealth Games to be held in Delhi, which werescheduled to commence in October, 2010. Having regard to theimportance of the matter, the Principal Secretary, Tourism, theCommissioner, Meerut Circle and the Director of Industries ofthe U.P. Government, attended the said meeting as special invitees.1 (2011) 7 SCC 493 (ITC Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

5. At a meeting held by the Circle Commissioner, Meerut on2.7.2006 with officials of NOIDA Authority, he communicatedthe direction that construction of Hotels should be completed beforethe commencement of the Commonwealth Games. At the saidmeeting the following 14 plots were identified as being suitablefor allotment as hotels/plots: (a) six plots each measuring 40000square metre for 5 star hotels in Sectors 96, 97 and 98; (b) fiveplots each measuring 20000 square metre for 4 star hotels inSectors 72, 101, 105, 124 and 135; and (c) three plots for 3 starhotels (measuring 20000, 20000 & 10000 square metre) in Sectors62, 63, and 142.

A

B

C

6. In view of the Government’s Policy dated 22.5.2006 and thedecisions taken at the meeting chaired by the Commissioner,Meerut Circle on 6.7.2006, the NOIDA Board took the followingdecisions at its 136th meeting held on 14.7.2006 :

(i) It approved the proposal for making provision for hotels inreserved commercial area – Zone C 3 (as hotels had notbeen permitted in commercial areas C-1 and C-2 of themaster plan reserved for wholesale and retail activities andas there was demand for hotels due to CommonwealthGames 2010) and directed inclusion thereof in the approvedproposed NOIDA Master Plan 2021 and reference to theState Government for its approval.

D

E

(ii) It decided to launch the Hotel Plot Allotment Scheme andauthorized the CEO to finalise the terms and conditions forallotment, so as to ensure construction of hotels by theallottees before the commencement of the CommonwealthGames.

F

In pursuance of the said decision, NOIDA Authority sent acommunication dated 20.7.2006 to the State Government seekingapproval of its decision to make a provision for hotels in commercialGareas under Zone 3 and inclusion of it in NOIDA Master Plan,2021.

7. The Secretary, Sports & Youth Affairs, Government of India,held meetings with NOIDA Authority officials on 28.7.2006 and22.8.2006 in connection with preparations for Commonwealth H

Games scheduled in October, 2010. At those meetings, theSecretary, Sports & Youth Affairs stressed the Government ofIndia’s request for earmarking 25 hotel plots in NOIDA. Thereforeit was decided to reduce the area of 5 star hotels to 24000 squaremetre (instead of 40,000 square metre earlier proposed), the areaof 4 star hotels to 12500 square metre (instead of 20000 squaremetre) and the area of 3 star Hotels to 7500 square metre (insteadof 10000 square metre) and thereby convert the 14 plots into 25plots made up of 10 plots for 5 star hotels, 5 plots for 4 star hotelsand 10 plots for 3 star hotels.

8. At the meeting held on 28.8.2006 under the chairmanship ofthe Circle Commissioner, Meerut, the said decision to increasethe number of plots for hotels from 14 to 25 by reducing the plotmeasurements, in the following manner:

(i) Ten plots for 3 star hotels – (area 7500 square metre each)

Plot Nos. SDC/H1 and SDC/H2 in sector 62, plot Nos.A-155/B and A-155/C in sector 63, plot No. SDC/H 2 in sector 72,plot No.124A/2 in sector 124, plot No.SDC/H-2 in sector 103,plot No.SDC/H-2 in sector 105, SDC/H-2 in sector 135 andplot No.14 in sector 142.

(ii) Five plots for 4 star hotels : (area : 12,500 square metreeach)

Plot No.SDC/H-1 in sectors 72, 103, 105 and 135 and plotNo.124A/1 in sector 124.

(iii) Ten plots for 5 star hotels : (area 24,000 square metre)

Plot Nos.H-1 to H-10 in sectors 96, 97 and 98.

9. The proposal for approving the increase in number of plots andreductions in their size was placed before the NOIDA Board atthe 137th meeting on 1.9.2006. The NOIDA Board approved theproposal. The terms and conditions for allotment drawn by theCEO were also approved with a modification that they shouldprovide for obtaining Hotel Completion Certificate by December2009 (with authority to CEO to grant extension of time). Inpursuance of the said decision, NOIDA Authority published theHotel Site Allotment Scheme on 17.10.2006, by advertisements innewspapers and by issue of information brochures containing AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Adetailed terms and conditions, inviting applications for allotmentof plots for 5 star, 4 star and 3 star hotels in NOIDA on 90 yearslease basis. Applications were made available between 17.10.2006and 1.11.2006 (extended till 10.11.2006).”

3. The facts in all these Contempt Petitions are more or lessBidentical and for facility, Contempt Petition No.413 of 2019 is taken asthe lead case. The reference to the expression the “Petitioner” shallhereafter be taken as the Petitioner in said lead case while the expressionthe “Petitioners” shall be taken as all the Petitioners in the ContemptPetitions. The application preferred by the Petitioner for allotment ofPlot No.03, Block No. H, Sector No.96, Noida, admeasuring 24,000Csquare metre having been accepted, Lease Deed dated 28.03.2007 wasexecuted between the Petitioner and NOIDA. The relevant recitals ofthe Lease Deed were as under:- “WHEREAS the Authority had floated a scheme for allotment of[3/4/5] star hotel sites in NOIDA on 17/10/2006 (hereinafterDreferred to as the “Scheme”) in compliance of Tourism Department,U.P. Government Order No.984/41-06-180/2005 dated 22/05/2006and had invited applications for allotment of Hotel site under thesaid Scheme from companies/institutions/consortium of companies/institutions registered/incorporated in India or abroad which areEin hotel business and satisfying the eligibility criteria and subjectto and on the terms and conditions set-forth in the said Scheme;and WHEREAS the Authority, after evaluation of the applicationsreceived from the eligible ‘applicants including, inter alia, M/s.FHAMPHSIRE HOTELS & RESORTS LLC, a Companyincorporated and existing under the laws of jurisdiction of itsincorporation, has issued its allotment Letter No. NOIDA/DGM(IND.)/2007/91 dated 12/01/2007 (hereinafter referred to as the“Allotment Letter”) to the said M/S. HAMPSHIRE HOTELS &RESORTS LLC allotting them Plot No.03, Block-H, Sector-96,GNOIDA admeasuring 24000 square metre approximately and morefully described in Schedule ‘I’ hereto and inter alia requiring theM/s. HAMPSHIRE HOTELS & RESORTS LLC to, inter alia,pay the premium, take possession and execute the lease deedwithin the period stipulated in the Letter of Allotment; and H

… … …

H

… … …

I.That in consideration of the total premium ofARs.19,53,60,000/- (Rupees Ninteen Crores Fifty Three Lacsand Sixty Thousand only) agreed to be paid by the Lesseeat the time and in the manner hereinafter provided and infurther consideration of the lease rent herein reserved andof the covenants, conditions and agreements hereinafterBcontained and on the part of the Lessee to be paid observedand performed, the Lessor doth hereby grant and demiseUNTO the Lessee all that plot of land numbered as 03 inBlock H Sector No.96 situated within the New OkhlaIndustrial Development Area, District Gautam Budh Nagar,Uttar Pradesh, and containing by measurement 24,000Csquare metre …… … …II.That the Lessee has on or before the date of execution ofthis lease deed paid unto the Lessor at its office or asDotherwise directed by the Lessor the yearly Lease Rent ofRs.48,84,000.00 (Rs. Forty Eighty Lacs Eighty FourThousand only) in advance on yearly basis, for the first 10years of the Term of the Lease hereby granted commencingfrom the date of execution of the lease deed and the yearlyLease Rent for the remaining period of the Term shall beEpayable by the Lessee annually in advance on or beforethe due date of payment set-forth in Clause 1 hereinabove,without waiting for any demand, notice or reminder therefor.… …”

4. The allotment of the hotel sites by NOIDA to various suchallottees was challenged by way of two Writ Petitions (Civil Misc. WritPetition No.24917/2007 and PIL Writ Petition No.29252/2007) in theHigh Court[2] submitting inter alia that the allotment was at a very lowprice. By an interim order dated 22.05.2007 the High Court directed theState Government to exercise its power of revision under Section 41(3)of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 read withSection 12 of said Act and to take a re-look in regard to the allotments.The State Government considered the matter and found the allotmentsto be irregular and, therefore, directed NOIDA to cancel the same. The F

G

2 The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Adecision was implemented by NOIDA by issuing cancellation ordersdated 03.08.2007. In view of the cancellation, the original writ petitionswere allowed to be withdrawn.

However, the allottees then preferred writ petitions challengingcancellation of their allotments. These writ petitions were allowed byBthe High Court by common order dated 13.05.2008 and the cancellationorders dated 03.08.2007 were set aside on the ground that they wereopposed to principles of natural justice for want of opportunity of hearing.The High Court, therefore, remanded the matter for taking a freshdecision.

CThe order of remand was, however, challenged by the allotteesby filing Special Leave Petitions in this Court. By way of an interimorder, this Court permitted the State Government to give hearing to theconcerned allottees and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law,uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the High Court in itsjudgment and order dated 13.05.2008. Accordingly, the matter wasDconsidered by the State Government and by individual orders dated08.09.2008 passed in the case of each of the allottees, a decision wastaken by the State Government to cancel the allotments made by NOIDA.

Since these orders were passed during the pendency of thechallenge in this Court, the allottees were permitted to challenge theEorders of cancellation dated 08.09.2008 by filing additional grounds inpending Special Leave Petitions.

5. After considering the rival submissions, by its judgment andorder dated 05.07.2011, this Court found that the allotment of commercialplots to the allottees was valid and legal, but, since the commercial plotsFcould have fetched premium at a rate of Rs.70,000/- per square metreat the relevant time, this Court made following observations:-

“110. In these cases the allotment of commercial plots to appellantsis valid and legal. The violation is in making such allotment onfixed allotment rate which is less than the rate the plots wouldGhave fetched by calling for tenders or by holding auctions.Therefore the equitable solution in these cases is to give anopportunity to the lessees to pay the difference thereby inconsideration which arose on account of wrong interpretationinstead of cancelling the leases.

H

111. According to the State Government, the commercial plotswould have fetched a premium at rate of Rs.70,000 per squaremetre at the relevant time (October 2006 to January 2007) andNOIDA Authority had been denied the benefit of that allotmentrate, by reason of allotment of the plots at Rs.7400/- per squaremetre. Therefore if the appellants are willing to pay the balanceof premium as claimed by respondents, the leases need not beinterfered.

112. In this case the violation of the policies of NOIDA in makingallotments has resulted in a lesser premium being charged thanwhat would have been applied for commercial plots. Accordingto respondents the premium that would have been charged wasRs.70,000/- per square metre as against Rs.7,400 per square metre.Therefore, the violation of the guidelines in regard to disposal ofcommercial plots has resulted only in a loss of revenue by way ofpremium and if this could be made up, there is no reason why theleases should not be continued.

… … …

115. .. … …Therefore if the appellants (2006-2007 allottees) areto be extended the aforesaid benefits offered to allottees underthe 2008 Scheme, the rate of Rs.70,000/- per square metre (therate of 2008 scheme was 10% more than Rs.70,000/- per squaremetre) claimed by the respondents becomes logical and reasonable.We therefore find no reason to reject the claim of respondentsthat the allotment rate should be Rs.70,000/- per square metre.We accordingly grant the appellants an opportunity to save theleases by paying the difference in premium at Rs.62600/- persquare metre to make it upto Rs.70,000/- per square metre.

116. In view of the above we dispose of these appeals as follows :

(i) The order of the High Court setting aside the revisional orderdated 1.8.2007 of the State Government and the consequentialorders of cancellation of allotment of plots dated 3.8.2007 byNOIDA Authority, is affirmed.

(ii) The revisional orders dated 8.9.2008 passed by the StateGovernment cancelling the allotments of plots to appellants, areset aside.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A(iii) The appellants are given the option to continue their respectiveleases by paying the premium (allotment rate) at Rs.70000/- persquare metre (with corresponding increase in yearly rent/one timelease rent), without any location benefit charges. The appellantsshall exercise such option by 30.9.2011. Such of those appellantsexercising the option will be entitled to the following benefits whichBhas been extended in regard to the allottees under 2008 allotmentscheme of NOIDA Authority:

A

C

D

(a) 40% of FAR can be used by the allottee as commercialspace (as stipulated in the 2008 scheme).

(b) Permission to pay at its option, the balance to make up25% of the premium (after adjusting all amounts paid atRs.7400/- per square metre plus location benefit charges)on or before 30.9.2011 and the balance 75% of premiumin sixteen half yearly instalments commencing from1.1.2012 with interest at 11% per annum (as offered tothe applicants in 2008 scheme).

(c) The lessees will be entitled to transfer rights inaccordance with the 2008 scheme.

E

On exercise of such option, the lease shall continue and the periodbetween 1.8.2007 to 31.7.2011 shall be excluded for calculatingthe lease period of 90 years. Consequently the period of leasementioned in the lease deed shall stand extended by acorresponding four years period, so that the lessee has the benefitFof the lease for 90 years. An amendment to the lease deed shallbe executed between NOIDA Authority and the lesseeincorporating the aforesaid changes.

G

H

(iv) If any appellant is unwilling to continue the lease by payingthe higher premium as aforesaid, or fails to exercise the option asper para (iii) above by 30.9.2011, the allotment and consequentiallease in its favour shall stand cancelled. In that event, NOIDAAuthority shall return all amounts paid by such appellant toNOIDA Authority towards the allotment and the lease, and alsoreimburse the stamp duty and registration charges incurred by it, with interest at 18% per annum from the date of payment/incurringof such amounts to date of reimbursement by NOIDA Authority.If NOIDA Authority returns the amount to the appellant within31.12.2011, the rate of interest payable by NOIDA Authority shallbe only 11% per annum instead of 18% per annum.

(v) Parties to bear their respective costs.”

6. Thus, the allottees who were willing to pay the premium atRs.70,000/- per square metre, with corresponding increase in yearly rent/one-time lease rent without any location benefit charges, could exercisean option whereafter an amendment to the lease deed had to be executedbetween NOIDA and the concerned allottee. But those allottees whowere unwilling to continue the lease by paying the higher premium, wereto be returned all amounts paid by them towards the allotment and thelease and the amount of stamp duty and the registration charges incurredby them with interest at 18% per annum from the date of payment/incurring of such amounts to the date of reimbursement.

7. The Petitioners exercised their option to continue their respectiveleases by paying the premium at Rs.70,000/- per square metre.

8. On 29.09.2011, 25% of the premium and lease rent wasdeposited by the Petitioner and thereafter, on 03.04.2013 additionalamount of Rs.5 crores was deposited. It is submitted that despite suchdeposits, no supplementary lease deed was executed. According to thePetitioners, after making over the additional amount, at the rate statedby this Court, the supplementary lease deed had to be executed on thebasis of which the Petitioners could have raised finance and gone aheadwith the project. On the other hand, according to NOIDA, the lease rentand other dues had to be cleared first, only whereafter the supplementarylease deed would be executed.

It is in this background that the present Contempt Petitions havebeen filed in this Court.

9. During the course of hearing of these Contempt Petitions, on05.09.2019 two options were suggested to resolve the disputes betweenthe parties. Those options were:- A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

“All the contempt petitioners-allottees shall pay up all the amountsthat are due alongwith the accrued interest on or before 31.12.2019,whereafter, NOIDA shall execute a supplementary lease deed infavour of the contempt petitioners-allottees.

OR

B

The plots in question which were allotted to the contemptpetitioners-allottees be resumed by NOIDA and put up for freshauction, and from and out of the proceeds the money depositedby each of the contempt petitioners-allottees be returned by theCNOIDA along with interest @ 11% p.a.”

Both the sides sought accommodation to seek instructions in thematter and they were directed to file affidavits. Accordingly, the affidavitswere filed on behalf of the Petitioners as well NOIDA.

D10. All the Petitioners filed their affidavits willing to exercise theSecond Option. The affidavit filed on behalf of NOIDA on 13.09.2019stated as under:- “4. In reference to the order passed by this Hon’ble Court, it isrespectfully submitted that the NOIDA would have not objectionEif this Hon’ble Court is pleased to permit the petitioner – allottee-lessee to pay up all the amounts that are due along with accruedinterest on or before 31.12.2019 where after the NOIDA shallexecute the Supplementary lease deed in favour of the petitioner-allottee-lessee company.

F

5. With reference to the second option set out in the Hon’bleCourt’s order dated 5.9.2019 and taking into consideration contentsof para 3 of the affidavit dated 11.9.2019 filed on behalf of thepetitioner-allottee-lessee company, the following five aspects mayvery kindly be considered by this Hon’ble Court:

G

(i) that the petitioner-allottee lessee has been enjoyingpossession of the leased plot since the September 2009;

(ii) that under terms of the allotment, the processing fees isnon-refundable;H

(iii) that the stamp duty is paid to the State Government andAnot to NOIDA and as per the directions issued by thisHon’ble Court in its Judgment dated 5.7.2011, the stampduty was refundable only in the event the allottee wereto exercise the option of not accepting the rate fixed bythis Hon’ble Court i.e. Rs.70,000/- per sq.mt. TheBpetitioner – allottee-lessee exercised the option ofcontinuing with the allotment @ Rs.70,000/- per sq.mt.Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek refund ofthe stamp duty from NOIDA.

A

(iv) that while enjoying possession of the leased plot, thepetitioner has belatedly approached this Hon’ble Courtby alleging that the Supplementary lease deed has notbeen executed.

C

(v) the interest that was paid was only on account of thedelay on the part of the petitioner – allottee-lessee innot paying the amount on time for which the petitioner -allottee-lessee itself is responsible, therefore, whethersuch interest amount is also liable to refunded and thattoo with interest.

Therefore, this Hon’ble Court may like to consider whether thepetitioner-allottee-lessee is to be refunded the amount withreference to all the 9 heads, excluding the stamp duty and that toowith 11% interest so as to enable the NOIDA to take its finaldecision with respect to the second option noted in the Hon’bleCourt’s order dated 5.9.2019.”

D

E

11. The matter came up on 17.09.2019. After quoting the relevantportion from the Order dated 05.09.2019, the Order recited as under:- “Thereafter, affidavits have been filed by the concerned contemptpetitioners in all the matters.

G

By way of example, we may quote the figures available from theaffidavit filed by the contempt petitioner in Contempt Petition (Civil)No.413 of 2019, which are to the following effect:

H

256SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2021] 2 S.C.R.ASr.DateChallanParticularAmountNo. 1 11.11.2006 4704 Processing 5,00,000 Charges2 11.11.2006 4704 Registration 5,00,00,000 Money306.03.20076392Insta lment 14,53,60,000B406.03.20076392Lease Rent48,84,0005 06.03.2007 6392 Inter est 16,95,867 626.03.20075964/5969Inter est3,53,6407 11.05.2007 44314 One Time 5,37,24,000 Lease Rent 8 29.09.2011 5315 Balance 17,01,68,000 Premium C25% as per order of Hon’ble Supreme Court & Adva nce Lease RentD9 03.04.2013 5611 Part Payment 5,00,00,000 of InstalmentTotal Amount Paid47,66,85,50712.03.2007Stamp Duty 1,99,27,050Payment (Lease Deed Registered 28/03/2007)

E

Total Amount Paid 49,66,12,557”

E

Total Amount Paid 49,66,12,557”

The contempt petitioners thereafter submitted that they wouldhave no objection if NOIDA was to resume all the plots in questionsubject to the aforesaid amounts being refunded to the contemptFpetitioners.

In response, an affidavit has been filed by NOIDA in which it issubmitted that certain elements out of the amounts mentionedhereinabove would be non-refundable and, as such, those amountsought not to be taken into account while coming to the aggregateGsum that could be returned to the contempt petitioners. It wasalso submitted that the interest @ 11% per annum as suggested inthe order passed by this Court would be at a rate higher than theprevalent rate and, as such, it needed to be scaled down.

We heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate and Mr.HRavindra Kumar, learned Advocate.

Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate fairly submitted thatthe amounts mentioned against Heads at Sr. Nos.1, 5, 6 and StampDuty may not be refunded to the contempt petitioners providedreasonable rate of interest was awarded to them on the amountsdeposited by the contempt petitioners. In his submission, interest@ 11% per annum would be reasonable considering the fact thatthe huge amounts were deposited with the authorities.

Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned Advocate submitted that thecontempt petitioners had all the while enjoyed the property and,as such, they were not entitled to any interest on the amountsdeposited by them. Said submission was refuted by Mr. Rohatgisubmitting that the land has always been lying without being putto any profitable use and, as such, the contempt petitioners havenot really enjoyed any benefit from the land.

Mr. Kumar then left the matter to the discretion of the Court andsuggested that the Court may consider granting interest at suchrate as it deems appropriate.

Considering the entirety of the matter, in our view, the appropriateinterest rate could be @ 7% per annum.

In the circumstances, the options given in order dated 05.09.2019could be availed, subject to the aforesaid modification. Theappropriate affidavits shall be filed by the contempt petitioners aswell as NOIDA within three weeks from today. The affidavitsshall indicate in tabular form all the amounts as stated hereinaboveand then indicate separately those which would not be refundable.If there be any other charges or dues, the same be indicated withclarity in the affidavit of NOIDA.”

12. A further affidavit was filed on behalf of NOIDA on 25.11.2019submitting inter alia that in case the Petitioners express their intentionnot to continue with the allotment and seek refund, the case would berequired to be considered as surrender in terms of Clause ‘N’ of theBrochure, in which case the deposited sum or 30% of the premium,whichever is less, would be required to be forfeited and the remainingamount would be refunded without interest. It was stated in the affidavitas under:- “3. It is submitted that pursuant to the allotment and the executionof the Lease Dead in favour of the Petitioner Company, possession A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aof the allotted plot was handed over to the Allottee – Lessee wayback on 28.9.2007. Ever since then the Petitioner is in thepossession of the allotted plot. However, as submitted in theAffidavit filed earlier the Petitioner Company, except for makingpart payment of the first instalment the petitioner company failedand neglected to pay all the 16 instalments. As a result, it is inBarrears of huge dues payable to the NOIDA. It is submitted thatearlier, a Compliance Affidavit in reference to Hon’ble Court’sOrder dt. 5.9.2019 had been filed on 13.9.2019, the contentswhereof are reiterated and the same may be taken intoconsideration by this Hon’ble Court.

C4. It is further submitted that this Hon’ble Court, vide Order dt.17.09.2019, has been pleased to grant opportunity to the respondentto submit an Affidavit indicating in a tabular form the amountsthat had been deposited by the Petitioner. Liberty has also beengranted by the said order to indicate with clarity any other chargeDor dues which is not refundable.”

13. In the aforesaid backdrop, we heard learned counsel led byMr. Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate for the Petitioners on one handand Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned Advocate for NOIDA.

14. Two options were suggested in the Order dated 05.09.2019.EGoing by the affidavits filed by the Petitioners and the stand taken by thelearned counsel on their behalf, the Petitioners are not agreeable to theFirst Option, though NOIDA is completely agreeable.

15. The Second Option as suggested in the Order dated 17.09.2019,contemplated sale of the plots after resumption by NOIDA, and paymentFto the Petitioners from and out of the sale proceeds. It was also madeclear that the interest of NOIDA could be secured by ensuring that incase the price quoted in the fresh auction was lesser than what wasassured under the current arrangement with the Petitioners, the shortfallcould be directed to be made good by the Petitioners. But the affidavitGfiled by NOIDA has not dealt with this aspect and has suggested deductionof 30% of the premium as stated above.

16. During the course of discussion, the learned counsel for thePetitioners invited our attention to communication dated 21.10.2019addressed by Commercial Department of NOIDA to M/S INGKACentres India Pvt. Ltd. accepting E-bid for allotment of a CommercialH

Property admeasuring 47833 square meters, which is comparable withthe size of the plots in the instant case. The communication shows thatthe bid at the rate of Rs.1,59,010.4528 per sq. metres was accepted, asagainst the price of Rs.70,000/- per sq. metres in the instant case.

17. The facts set out in afore-quoted paragraphs of the Judgmentdated 05.07.2011 indicate that the plots in the instant case were meantfor five-star and three-star hotels which were to come up well-in-timeto cater to the demand for hotels around Commonwealth Games, 2010.It has been more than 10 years since the Games got over but nodevelopment on these plots has occurred. The tussle is going on betweenthe Petitioners on one side who submit that because of indifferent andrecalcitrant attitude on part of the authorities, they could not enter intoany arrangement for financial accommodation, and as such, nodevelopment could be undertaken; while on the other hand, the submissionon part of NOIDA is that unless the payment of premium in entirety wasmade, no lease could be executed. Each side is blaming the other andthe resultant effect is that the properties are lying undeveloped, no paymentof premium is forthcoming and the public interest is not getting subserved.It was in this background that the Second Option was suggested so thatthe Petitioners are allowed to withdraw themselves from the arrangementand, at the same time, the interest of NOIDA is also well secured.Submissions were advanced on the basis of what weighed with thisCourt when the Judgment dated 05.07.2011 was passed, where this Courthad given the facility of withdrawal from the arrangement to such of theallottees who were unwilling to continue. In that case, the concernedallottees were allowed to withdraw all the amounts including the stampduty and registration charges along with interest @ 18% per annum.This aspect of the matter has been pressed into service on behalf of thePetitioners to submit that they were willing to forego the amounts indicatedat Sl. Nos. 1, 5 and 6 of the illustrative chart quoted in the Order dated17.09.2019 and as such the offer on part of NOIDA to refund thedeposited amounts, after deducting 30% of the premium amount withoutpayment of any interest, would not be fair, if the current prices of thelands in the area were to be taken into account. It was also submittedthat the fault actually lies with NOIDA in not permitting the Petitionersto enter into financial accommodation, and thus no development couldtake place. These submissions are undoubtedly refuted by the learnedcounsel for NOIDA.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A18. The present status is nothing but a stalemate in which valuableassets of a public authority are locked completely. The public interest isneither getting subserved, nor is NOIDA getting instalments towardspremium on time. We asked the learned counsel for NOIDA if anyproceedings for resumption of land were undertaken, to which theresponse was in the negative. In this situation, the modalities suggestedBby the Second Option, in our considered view, could yield results whichwould be favourable to both sides, and at the same time would take careof public interest as well. However, considering the price index which isavailable through the bid as described in the communication dated21.10.2019, and keeping the interest of NOIDA in forefront, in our view,Cthe modalities stated hereafter, will take care of public interest andcompeting claims of both sides.19. Before we come to the modalities, certain aspects need to beclarified including what amounts the Petitioners would be entitled to:- A] From the illustrative chart, which was quoted in the OrderDdated 17.09.2019, the claims with regard to amounts mentionedagainst Sl. Nos.1, 5 and 6 were given up by the Petitioners.

B] As regards stamp duty, the stand of NOIDA is that the moneywas not paid to NOIDA but was paid to the State Government,and, therefore, NOIDA cannot be made to refund the amountEtowards stamp duty. Since the State Government is not party tothe present matter, no direction in that behalf can be issued, andthe matter shall have to be left to the State Government to considerwhether there could be refund of stamp duty either in full, or inpart.

FC] Rest of the amounts comprise of two types of payments: a)towards instalments of premium; and b) towards payment of leaserent.

20. As regards lease rent, it is evident from the chart in the Orderdated 17.09.2019 that an amount of Rs.44,84,000/- was paid by theGPetitioner by way of lease rent on 06.03.2007 and one-time lease rentamounting to Rs.5,37,24,000/- was paid on 11.05.2007. One-time leaserent constitutes payment for the entirety of the period of lease coveredby the document. Therefore, that component of the amount whichrepresents the remainder period after the plot is sold in terms of thisOrder, ought not to be charged by NOIDA from the Petitioners. If theH

plot is re-sold, the new allottee, in any case, will be paying in respect ofsuch remainder period under a fresh lease executed in his favour. ThePetitioners shall, therefore, be entitled to refund of that component ofamount of one-time lease rent which proportionately represents theremainder period after the plots in question are sold in terms of thisOrder. They shall not, however, be entitled to any interest on suchcomponent.

21. The amount of interest on refund of the amounts paid towardspremium that the Petitioners would be entitled to was subject matter ofdiscussion on the earlier occasion. By order dated 17.09.2019 it wasfound that the appropriate rate of interest could be 7% per annum. ThePetitioners would, therefore, be entitled to 7% annual interest on theamounts deposited by them towards premium from time to time. Theseamounts payable towards interest shall be calculated upto 30.04.2021and shall stand frozen as on that date.

22. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the revised SecondOption shall be as under:-

A) The concerned plots allotted to the Petitioners be sold byNOIDA by inviting E-bids or by auction after advertising the sameas was done in the Scheme No.2019-20 (Commercial Builder Plot-I)

B) If the price quoted in such E-bid for each of the concernedplots is more than one and a half times of the price at which thearrangement with the Petitioners was arrived at; that is to say,more than Rs.1,05,000 per sq. metre, the Petitioners be returnedthe amounts deposited towards premium in each case. However,in case there is shortfall as against the rate of Rs.1,05,000/- persq. metre, the shortfall shall be made good by the Petitioners andto that extent the amount payable to the Petitioners towards refundof amount paid towards premium shall stand reduced.

C) Insofar as refund of amounts towards remainder part of thelease rent and the component of interest payable to each of thePetitioners are concerned, said amounts shall be made over onlyif the price received by NOIDA in fresh sale of said plots in termsof this Order is in excess of Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre and onlyto the extent of excess beyond Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

AD) The Petitioners shall, thus, first be made over the componentrepresenting the amount paid by them towards premium in themanner as stated above. It is only if the rate fetched in such re-sale is greater than Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre that the Petitionersshall be paid amounts towards the remainder part of the leaserent and component of interest payable, as stated hereinabove;Bsubject always to the requirement that these amounts are paidfrom the amounts representing the excess above the base priceof Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre; which will ensure that NOIDAwill always get a base rate of Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre for theconcerned plot in such re-sale. If the excess amount beyondCRs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre is not sufficient to absorb the amountspayable to the Petitioners towards component of lease rent andthe interest; their entitlement shall stand reduced to that extent. Itis also made clear that if the difference between the base price ofRs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre and the price fetched in the re-sale isgreater than what would be payable towards component of leaseDrent and interest, NOIDA alone shall be entitled to such excessamount.

E] By way of illustration:-

(a) If the price quoted in E-bid or auction for a plot of 20,000Esq. metre is at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per sq. metre,the shortfall will be Rs.5,000/- x 20,000/- (extent of plot)= Rs.10 Crores. Thus, Rs.10 Crores shall be deductedfrom the deposited amount towards premium and thebalance shall be refunded. Since the price quoted in E –bid or auction is less than Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre,Fnothing shall be payable towards remainder part of thelease rent and the component of interest.

(b) If the price quoted in E – bid or auction is at the rate ofRs.1,20,000/- per sq. metre, the amount to be receivedby NOIDA beyond the level of Rs.1,05,000/- per sq.metre for the same plot shall be Rs.15,000/- x 20,000/-(extent of plot) = Rs.30 Crores. As the price quoted ismore than Rs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre:- G

(i) The entire amount deposited towards premiumshall be refunded by NOIDA; and H

(ii) So much of the amount representing remainderpart of the lease rent and component of interestwhich can be assorbed from and out of Rs.30Crores shall be refunded but not beyond Rs.30Crores.

(iii) Thus, if the amount representing remainder partof the lease rent and the component of interest isgreater than Rs.30 Crores, the entitlement shallbe only upto Rs.30 Crores and not in excessthereof. However, if such amount payabletowards these two heads is less than Rs.30Crores, the amount shall be paid in full and thebalance shall be retained by NOIDA.

(F) In the process, NOIDA will always get minimum ofRs.1,05,000/- per sq. metre in such re-sale.

G] After the concerned plots are sold in auction and appropriatedocuments are executed in favour of the new allottees, theconcerned Petitioners shall be entitled to apply to the StateGovernment for refund of amounts paid by them towards StampDuty. Such applications shall be considered by the StateGovernment in accordance with the extant policy and inaccordance with law.

23. The modality devised above will ensure that as against thepromised rate of Rs.70,000 per sq. metre, which premium is also inarrears in the present cases, NOIDA shall get much more than thattowards price of land and will also stand to gain considerably. Accordingly,in the process, not only will the public interest stand subserved, but theprojects which have run into stalemate, will also come out of difficulties.

24. The Second Option given in the Order dated 05.09.2019 shallstand modified to the aforesaid extent.

25. In case the Petitioners are agreeable to these conditions, thePetitioners may exercise such option by filing appropriate affidavits withNOIDA along with an appropriate Resolution of the Board of theconcerned Company. Upon such affidavit being filed within two weeksfrom the date of this Order, NOIDA shall calculate the amounts depositedby each of the Petitioners towards premium and so also the amounts A

BC

DE

F

G

H

Apayable to each of the Petitioners towards component of lease rent andinterest from the date of each of those deposits @ 7% per annum upto30.04.2021. A communication giving all the details, including the proposeduser as well as the minimum price at which the plots would be put up forsale, shall be addressed to each of the Petitioners exercising such optionon or before 17.05.2021. The possession shall then be delivered by eachBof the Petitioners of the concerned plots back to NOIDA by 31.05.2021.Upon such handing over of the possession, the title of the Petitioners inrespect of the concerned plots shall stand extinguished. The Lease Deedsin their favour, shall be delivered up by each of the Petitioners, whichshall also stand cancelled.C

26. NOIDA shall, thereafter, put up the plots in question for auctionor invite E-bids within three months, in the same fashion as was done inconnection with the property referred to in the communication dated21.10.2019. It will be entirely up to NOIDA to put up the plots for salecollectively or individually or to sell them for any purpose which in theDopinion of NOIDA would subserve public interest and devise themodalities for sale. From and out of the sale proceeds received in suchsale, the amounts indicated above shall be paid to each of the Petitionersexercising such Second Option in accordance with the principles as statedabove, within three months of the sale.

E27. In case no option is exercised by any of the Petitioners in themanner indicated hereinabove, or in case no possession is handed overwithin the time stipulated even after exercising such option, it shall bedeemed that each of such Petitioners is not desirous of exercising theSecond Option and said Petitioners shall be treated to have opted for theFirst Option as indicated in the Order dated 05.09.2019. In such cases,FNOIDA shall issue appropriate communication calling upon them to payup all the dues in terms of the First Option within reasonable time. Thesupplementary Lease Deed shall be executed only after all the dues asindicated in the First Option are cleared. If the amounts are not clearedwithin the time stipulated, the concerned plots shall stand resumed inGfavour of NOIDA and those Petitioners shall be dispossessed of theplots in their occupation in a manner known to law.

28. It is made clear that the handing over of possession in exerciseof the revised Second Option, as granted earlier or taking over ofpossession in terms of the preceding paragraph, shall be on “as is whereHis” basis. The concerned Petitioners shall not be entitled to any value addition, be it in the form of construction of any structures or erection ofany compound wall. The possession shall be handed over and/or receivedalong with such value additions, which shall vest in NOIDA. Similarly,every individual on the plot in question must be made to vacate and thehanding over or receiving of possession must be clear and peaceful.

29. Though the scope of the Contempt Petitions was restricted tosee whether functionaries of NOIDA were guilty of disobedience of thedirections issued by this Court, the matter was considered from thestandpoint of enabling both sides to settle their disputes and get over thestalemate which has been obtaining for the last 10 years. The endeavourwas to see that the interest of both sides is sufficiently taken care of andmore than anything else, the public interest must stand subserved. It iswith this solution in mind, that the directions as stated above have beenissued by this Court.