HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONversusVEENA SHARMA & ORS.

                      [2009] 10 S.C.R. 1115


         HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT                      A
j
                     CORPORATION
                                 v.
                    VEENA SHARMA & ORS.
                (Review Petition No.1006 of 2008)
                                  In                               B
                 S.L.P. (Civil) No. 20155 of 2006.
                          JULY 16, 2009
            [S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.]
                                                                   c
        CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950:

          Article 137 - Review of ,judgment/orders by Supreme
    Court - Held: In modification of the orders dated 19th
    February, 2008 and 20th Febru_ary, 2008 passed by the Court,
    it is directed that the extension of the period for completion
                                                                   D
    of construction project shall be governed by the terms and
    conditions mentioned in the respective letters of allotment of
    plots and as noticed in the order - Industrial Development -
    Allotment of plots.
                                                                   E
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition (C)
    No.1006 of 2008.
                                 In
        S.L.P. (Civil) No. 20155 of 2006.                          F
         From the Judgment & Order dated 20.2.2008 of this Court
    in SLP (Civil) No. 20155 of 2006.
                               WITH
    R.P. {C) No. 1018 of 2008 in SLP (C) 16893 of 2006.            G

    R.P. (C) No. 1171 of 2008 in SLP (C) 18080 of 2006.
    R.P. (C) No. 1317 of 2008 in SLP (C) 19522 of 2006.
                               1115                                H
    1116        SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 10 S.C.R.


A R.P. (C) No. 1787 of 2008 in SLP (C) 16707 of 2006.
      A. Sharan, ASG, Ravindra Bana, Puneet Bali, Prabhjeet,
  Jauhar, Hittan Nehra, S.S. Jauhar, S.K. Mishra, Dr. S.K. Verma,
  Ashutosh, Kavita Wadia, Pawan S. Bindra, Varuna Bhandari
  Gugnani, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Subramonium Prasad,
B
  Praveen Agrawal and Ajay Pal for the appearing parties.
        The Order of the Court was delivered by
                                  ORDER
c       5.B. SINHA, J. 1. These applications have been filed by
    the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation for
    review of judgments and orders dated 19.2.2008 and
    20.2.2008.
         2. In effect and substance, these review applications are
D
    confined to interpretation of one of the directions issued by this    •
    Court relying on or on the basis of the statements made by Mr.
    Sharan, learned Senior Counsel at the time of hearing.
           We may notice the same:
E       "In all these cases, it is difficult to uphold the order of the
        High Court. But a general offer was made by the.learned
        Additional Solicitor General that those who intend to obtain
        reallotment of plot may do so on payment of the price as
        per the current rate as on the date of the order of the High
F       Court.
               Before us, several allottees had categorically made
        a statement that they are ready and willing to pay the
        prevailing price as fixed by the appellant- Corporation.
        Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this cases,
G
        we are of the opinion that in the event, respondents offer
        the prevailing price as on the date of judgment of the High
        Court, the plot, in question, shall stand re-allotted and
        should be subject to the same terms and conditions. Such
        reallotment may be made even in cases where we have
H
 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 1117
CORPORATION v. VEENA SHARMA [S.S. SINHA, J.]

    found the order of the High Court to be unsustainable.           A
            Respondents shall deposit the amount within six
    weeks from date. Appellant shall hand over the
    possession of the plot, in question, within four weeks
    thereafter. The highest executive of Appellant - Corporation
                                                                     8
    shall see to it that the order of this Court is complied with.
    It is, however, made clear that in the event of failure on the
    part of the respondents concerned in making payment in
    terms of this order, it would be open to the appellant to take
    recourse to such action as is permissible in law.
                                                                     c
    3. Mr. Sharan pointed out that the offer made by him on
behalf of the Corporation was considered by this Court in its
order dated 20th February 2008 passed initially in SLP (C) No.
19522 of 2006, which reads as under:
    "SLP (C) 19522/2006                                              D
          Another submission was made by Mr. P.S. Patwalia,
    learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
    respondent that his client is ready and willing to accept the
    offer of the petitioner that fresh letter of allotment may be    E
    issued at the prevailing rate as on the date of the passing
    of the judgment of the High Court i.e. Rs.12,500/- per sq.
    meter which having been accepted by Mr. A. Sharan,
    learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf
    of the petitioner, we direct that the Special Leave Petition
    be disposed of on the afore-mentioned terms.                     F

           It is accepted at the Bar that consequent upon
    issuance of fresh letter allotment, the respondent would be
    getting three years time to complete the construction
    project and commence the production of goods within a            G
    period of five years. He will furthermore be liable to pay
    all the dues within the aforementioned period subject to all
    adjustments of payments made by him in favour of the
    petitioner.

          It is stated by Mr. A. Sharan, learned ASG that the        H
    1118       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.


A        possession shall be handed over on 17.3.2008"
        4. It was pointed out that in terms of the letter of allotment,
    the period for extension of implementation of the project is
    hedged by certain conditions, which are as under:
B        'The period for implementation of the project can be
         extended by HSIDC for a period of one year subject to the
         allottee having completed construction equivalent to 20%
         of Permissible Covered Area (PCA) in case of plot size
         is upto one acre and 10% of PCA in case plot size is
c        more than one acre. Further, the allottee will satisfy the
         Corporation that he could not go into production within
         three years from the date of offer of possession for
         reasons beyond his control and he took effective steps for
         implementation of the project.
D        Second extension of one year for completion of project i.e.
         after four years from the offer of possession will be granted
         only in exceptional circumstances with the approval of
         Board of Directors of HSIDC."

E        5. Mr. A. Sharan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
    behalf of the review petitioners would urge that the judgment
    of this Court may be reviewed so as to clarify the conditions
    for extension.
      6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
F respondents have no objection to such clarifications being
  made.
      7. We, therefore, in modification of our orders dated 19th
  February, 2008 and 20th February 2008 direct that the
G extension of the period shall be governed by the terms and
  conditions mentioned in their respective letters of allotment and
  as noticed hereinbefore.
         8. These Review Petitions are allowed. No.costs.

H R.P.                                    Review Petitions allowed.