IMPORTANT POINT
The respondent was not only estopped from claiming impugned additional half acre of land but was also had no legal right on the basis of provisional allotment which was not made frual.

JUDGMENT

Leave granted

2. In this appeal, by special leave, there is challenge to two judgments of the Pujab & Haryana High Court the first being judgment dated 14.11.1994 whereby the respondent s writ petition was allowed and the appeallant was directed to allot a plot of land measuring half acre and the second judgment is dated 9.8.1995 whereby the Review Application filed by the appellant herein, was dismissed.

3. The relevant facts are that the appellant is Government company which is, inter alia, engaged carrying out activities towards the advancement industrial development in the State of Haryana. In the course of its activities, in 1983 it applications for allotment of certain plots of land set up industrial units in Gurgaon. The respondent applied for an industrial plot in Phase-IV. Udyog Vihar. Gurgaon for setting up a unit to manufacture reinfored concrete cement pipe and assessories. Allotment of plot of one acre in favour of the respondent was approved and he was requested to deposit 15% of the cost of land vide letter dated 27.10.1983. On the said 15% having been deposited by the respondent, he was offered an indurstrial plot No. 359 measuring one acre in Udyog Vihar Phase-IV. Gurgaon at the tentative rate of Rs.120/- per sq. meter. A provisional letter of allotment dated 27.12.1984 was issued and it was made clear therein that the respondent was required to fulfil certain pre-requisites connected with the implementation of the proposed project before the final allotment could be made in his favour. These pre-requisites were to be completed within 120 days of the date of allotment. This letter further stipulated that the provisional letter of allotment will not give any legal right of allotment unless the final allotment letter is issued.

4. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent neither complied with the formalities, as contemplated by the aforesaid letter dated 27.12.1984 within the time schedule non deposited any further amount with the appellant. According to the appellant for administrative reasons the industrial plot No. 359 which had been allotted to the respondent was changed to two plots measuring half acres each and renumbered as plot Nos. 374-375. Another provisional letter of allotment dated 5.11.1986 was written to the respondent stating therein that it had been decided to offer him industrial plot Nos. 374-375 measuring one acre aat tahe tentative rate of Rs. 120-60 per Sq. Yard. But before the allotment was issued in his favour, he was required to comply with certain pre-requisites enumerated in the said letter of allotment which were connected with the implementation of the respondent s proposed project. These pre-requisites included the unit being registered with the appropriate authority, drawing of the suit approved, building and machinery being sanctioned and list of plant and machinery to be installed at the unit. These pre-requisite formalities were required to be complated within 120 days of the said letter dated 5.11.1986 and it was stipulated that if this was not done within the specified time, then the provisional letter of allotment shall be treated as having been withdraw, unless its validity was extended in writing by the Corporation. It was again mentioned letter dated 5.11.1986 that the said letter shall give the respondent any legal right for allotment unless the final allotment is issued.

5. Soon after the despatch of the letter dated 5.11.1986, the appellant learnt that the aforesaid plot Nos. 374-375 were not available and had been wrongly offered to the respondent. The respondent was, accordingly, informed vide letter dated 10.11.1986 that the plot Nos. 374-375 had been wrongly dated wrongly mentioned in the provisional letter of allotment dated 5.11.1986 and that the respondent s case for allotment of alternative plot of one acre had been considered and approved but the plot number would be intimated shortly. Thereafter, it seems that discussion took place between the