Contractual parties are bound by the express terms of a concluded agreement. Statutorily created authorities cannot use internal administrative circulars to override explicit contractual provisions or contradict admissions of payment contained within a signed lease deed, as doing so violates principles of consistency and fairness.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri P.N. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Suresh Singh Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri Pranjal Mehrotra for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :

“(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to refund the wrongly realized amount of Rs. 29,22,675.00 with interest to the petitioner's Society.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to issue a 'Non Dues Certificate' in favour of the petitioner's Society at an early date, which may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

(c) Issue any other writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(d) Award the costs of the petition in favour of the petitioner.”

FACTS:

3. The present dispute relates to Group Housing Plot No. B-009/1A, Sector 62, NOIDA (hereinafter referred to as “the leased plot”) and the payment of one-time lease rent paid by the petitioner to NOIDA (hereinafter referred to as “the Authority”). The petitioner contends that the one-time lease rent was paid before the execution of the lease deed, whereas the Authority contends that the one-time lease rent was not paid in full, thus resulting in the issuance of a demand notice for the balance amount.

4. The petitioner was allotted a Group Housing plot, namely, Group Housing Plot No. B-9/1-A, Sector 62, Noida, under the Group Housing Scheme No. GHP/01/2001 (1). The allotment letter was issued on 19.05.2001. Clause 3 of the allotment letter provided for payment on lease rent either on a yearly basis or by way of one-time lease rent equivalent to 11 times the yearly lease rent payable at the time of execution of the lease deed. The possession of the plot was handed over to the petitioner through a possession letter dated 08.01.2002.

5. The petitioner, by means of challan no. 14940 dated 08.01.2002 deposited Rs. 5,56,700/- and by means of challan No. 14943 dated 21.02.2002 deposited Rs. 55,67,000/-. It is averred by the petitioner that the aggregate amount of Rs. 61,23,700/- constituted one-time lease rent payable prior to the execution of the lease deed. Thereafter, the lease deed was executed between the petitioner and Noida on 28.02.2002. Clause II (a) of the lease deed records that the petitioner has made full payment of one-time lease rent.

6. On 09.01.2004, the Authority issued a letter to the petitioner stating that the sum of Rs. 17,64,605/- was due towards the leased plot and directing the petitioner to deposit the same in the designated bank account of the Authority. Subsequently, on 13.03.2006, another letter was issued by the Authority to the petitioner stating that after adjustment of records, a sum of Rs. 2,552/- remains due till 30.08.2006. The letter further stated that “the amount due towards Lease rent at the time of the lease deed is being adjusted towards Lease rent on an annual basis”. The petitioner replied by stating that an amount of Rs. 2600/- has been deposited vide receipt no. 1430 on 27.02.2006. It was further asserted that the one-time lease rent had already been deposited, and the matter stood settled. A request was also made for the issuance of a No Dues Certificate from the Authority.

7. Thereafter, on 24.04.2006, a demand notice was issued stating that in response to the lett