IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) High Court has erred in observing that rate of Rs. 5900/- per sq. meter mentioned in lease deed shall be conclusive and final and binding between parties.
(2) Order by way of interim measure cannot be said to be final and conclusive between the parties.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition (C) No. 27632 of 2014 by which the High Court has allowed the said Writ Petition preferred by the respondents herein-original writ petitioners by which the High Court has disposed of the said writ petition by observing that in view of the subsequent execution of the lease deed in favour of the respondents herein original writ petitioners on 21.10.2014 determining the market value of the plot in question at Rs. 5900/- per sq. meter, the original respondent-NOIDA has preferred the present appeal.

2. Shri Sourav Roy, Learned Counsel has appeared on behalf of the appellants. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently submitted that the High Court has materially erred in disposing of the writ petition by observing that in view of the execution of the lease deed dated 21.10.2014 in favour of the original writ petitioners at Rs. 5900/- per sq. meter, it would prevail over the allotment letter dated 08.05.2014 and therefore the writ petition no longer survives.

2.1 It is vehemently submitted by Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that as such the lease deed dated 21.10.2014 in favour of the original writ petitioners at Rs. 5900/- per sq. meter was pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court dated 07.07.2014 in writ petition and subject to the ultimate outcome of the main writ petition. It is submitted that the price in the lease deed dated 21.10.2014 of Rs. 5900/- per sq. meter was interim and ad-hoc and by way of interim measure only and therefore solely on that basis the High Court is not justified in observing that in view of the execution of the lease deed dated 21.10.2014 it would prevail over the allotment order dated 08.05.2014.

2.2. Heavy reliance is placed on the interim order passed by the High Court vide order dated 07.07.2014 passed in the main writ petition as well as the conditions in the lease deed dated 21.10.2014 and the terms and conditions for allotment of industrial plot more particularly Clause 2(d) which provides the rates of allotment stated in the allotment letter are subject to change without notice and that the rates prevailing on the date of issue of allotment letter would be applicable, irrespective of the date of application and interview.

3. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3.1 It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact in the lease deed dated 21.10.2014 nothing was mentioned that the lease deed dated 21.10.2014 is subject to the ultimate outcome of the main writ petition and/or the rates mentioned in the lease deed i.e. Rs. 5900/- per sq. meter is tentative and/or ad-hoc and it was submitted that therefore when the subsequent execution of the lease deed dated 21.10.2014 at Rs. 5900/- per sq. meter was final for all purpose and conclusive, the High Court has rightly observed that the said lease deed shall be binding upon both the parties and therefore the High Court has rightly accepted the rate at Rs. 5900/- per sq. meter.

3.2 Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has also tried to make submission on merits on other points which as such are not dealt with and/or considered by the High Court at all. And for the reasons stated herein-below we propose to remand the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration of the original writ petition. We therefore do not enter any further on merits and/or the submissions by Learned counsels appearing for the respective parties on merits.

4. Having heard Learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and considering the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.

4.1 The Hi