The principle of unjust enrichment and the doctrine of legitimate expectations were central to the court's decision, emphasizing the obligation of the Development Authority to act fairly and reasonably in fulfilling its contractual obligations.

JUDGMENT :

1. The writ petitioner which is a company incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, a group company of the Logix Group of Companies a leading name in the field of real estate development in the National Capital Region of India has approached this Court invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming inter-alia the following reliefs:

“i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the records and quashing the impugned order dated 12.3.2021 passed by respondent No. 3 (Annexure No. 16 to the writ petition).

ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authority to refund the allotment money of Rs.62,09,59,254/- to the petitioner along with interest @ 14% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of realization.”

2. It is contended that in the year 2011 the respondent No. 2 i.e. the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Development Authority) invited sealed tenders in two bid system for allotment of commercial plots on lease for a period of 90 years on as is where is basis. The petitioner submitted its bid under the scheme for allotment of the plot and deposited a sum of Rs. Ten Crores (Rs.10,00,00,000/-) as earnest money. The bid/tender for allotment of commercial Plot No. 4, Block-CC, Sector 32, Scheme No. 2010-11, (Commercial Builders Plot-VI) was accepted the petitioner being the highest bidder @ Rs. 1,11,250 per square meters. The total area of the plot was 50,000 square meter and as such, the total premium of the plot allotted to the petitioner at the rate accepted worked out to Rs.556,25,00,000/-. As per the scheme, the petitioner was required to deposit 10% of the total premium amount of the plot within 90 days of the issuance of the allotment order after adjusting the 10% earnest money already deposited by the petitioner. The balance 90% of the premium was payable in 16 equal half yearly installments. The allotment letter further provided that the lease deed in respect of the plot would be executed within 180 days and the possession of the plot would also be given within 180 days.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner sought extension of time by 120 days under Clause H-1 of the scheme to submit the balance amount of Rs.45,62,50,000/-. The said extension was granted by the respondent/Development Authority vide its letter dated 30.6.2011. However, the authority informed the petitioner that the area allotted to it was in excess of 50,000 square meters and was actually 50,050.75 square meters and as such, the petitioner was liable to pay the excess area premium of Rs.56,45,937.50. The petitioner prayed for further time extension under Clause H (2) for 3 months for the payment of the allotment money and excess area premium which was granted vide letter dated 18.1.2012. The petitioner thereafter deposited the balance allotment money along with interest thereon totaling Rs.51,47,83,377/- as also the excess area premium along with interest totaling Rs.61,75,877/- on 21.1.2012 and requested the respondent/Development Authority to process the papers for the execution of lease and its registration at the earliest. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the Development Authority to issue the check list for land registration vide letters dated 23.1.2012 and 16.3.2012 and again on 6.4.2012. The respondent/Development Authority instead of responding to the request of the petitioner to proceed for executing the lease deed/registration issued a Notice dated 13.6.2012 requiring the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.59,02,92,796/- towards the 1st and 2nd installments along with penal interest payable under the allotment letter. The petitioner yet again in response to the demand raised by the respondent/Development Authority informed it about the urgency in getting the lease deed and its registration done as in the absence of the sam