No 975 of 1986
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
DD Thakur VC Mahajan section Markandaya GS Rao Sreepal Singh and Ms Kusum Chowdhary for the Petitioners
R N Trivedi SC Batra and Raju Ramachandran for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA J
The dispute in this group of writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution relates to allotment of land for residential purposes by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority shortly known as NOIDA 
NOIDA is a trans Jamuna housing project set up by the Uttar Pradesh Government in the year 327 1976
Prior to the setting up of the NOIDA the Defence Services Cooperative Housing Society Ltd and other socie ties had acquired lands in the area for purposes of housing of their members and when the same came to be notified for acquisition for NOIDA writ petition No 9034 of 1983 was filed challenging the acquisition the federation also filed a separate writ petition being 1588 of 1984
Some other writ petitions by the different parties were also filed
On 14th January 1985 after hearing parties a Bench of this Court inter alia made the following directions Both sides presented a fair and nearly accurate picture of the present situation
Spirit of re conciliation rather than confrontation prevailed all throughout
All reasonable suggestions emanating from both sides either accepted or seriously considered by both sides with a view to implement ing the scheme under which plots were to be allotted
Only three points remain which necessitated court s intervention
Having examined them we direct 1 NOIDA shall hand over actual possession of plots to each allottee of each society involved in the dispute
To identi fy them a list setting out their names has to be supplied within six weeks from today
2 Mr GL Sanghi learned counsel urged that NOIDA will be entitled to escalation charges for the year 1981 and 1982 which works out at the rate of Rs20 per square metre
He repeatedly pointed out that the NOIDA would be entitled to the same under the scheme
May be there was substance in the submission
However having regard to the fact that a sum of Rs550 crores has already been deposited by the allottees with the NOIDA for some time and as the scheme had not been implemented as per time schedule provided in the scheme itself to meet possession of plot to each allottee had to be handed over some where in 1982 and which would be now done in 1985 pursuant to the directions yet without setting a precedent and having regard to the facts of this case and special circumstances pointed out to this Court with regard to the present position we are of the opinion that the NOIDA is not entitled to escalation charges for the year 1981 and 1982
3 The third point of a minor difference was that a special 328 charge has to be paid by all allottees whose plots are said to be situated at a comparable advantageous position such as corner plots plots abutting to the main road or both etc
There may be advantage in taking the corner plot or a plot abutting on the road but that is fortuitous and not be one s volitional selection
Having regard to the special facts of this case and the element of luck in getting a particular plot we direct that the NOIDA would not be enti tled to collect special charge or anything extra for such plots
We order accordingly
It was further pointed out that there were some applicants who applied for the plots but who failed to keep to the time schedule in the matter of payment
If the number of such applicants had not been very large the Court would have examined each case
But the number of such applicants appears to be quite big
Mr Soli Sorabjee learned counsel in this con nection pointed out that under the interim order of this Court dated September 3 1988 amongst others NOIDA was directed to reserve 269 acres of land in sectors 41 and 42 or in adjoining sectors in addition to the land already allotted to the petitioners
Therefore their cases deserve consideration as requisite area of land is available
At the suggestion of the Court Mr GL Sanghi learned counsel agrees to appoint Shri ZH Kazmi Law Assistant Registrar Housing Lucknow who would be specifi cally directed to look into the case of each such applicant and decide whether any one deserves allotment avoiding technical approach and by approaching the matter from the angle of social justice with broad vision
If there is any dispute which cannot be resolved liberty to move this Court    On 16th December 1985 the following order was made The parties are agreed that the dispute in regard to pay ment of interest and the eligibility for allotment of plots may be decided by Shri DA Desai Chairman Law Commission as mediator and not as Arbitrator
The parties agree that whatever decision is given by Shri DA Desai 329 will be accepted by them as binding and there will be no question of challenging it in any form whatsoever
The parties also agree that simultaneous with the execution of documents possession of the plots shall be forthwith handed over to those who are admitted as eligible for allotment and interest shall be paid by them at the rate of 15 per annum from the date of the order made by this Court namely 241985 subject to adjustment one way or the other accord ing to the decision which may be given by Shri DA Desai
 The decision contemplated by the December order took some time to be given and the report furnished to this Court came to be hotly debated
More than three years have been taken on that account
It is unnecessary to deal with the different problems which arose in the proceedings before this Court after submission of the report till the matter has been heard in the third week of January this year
We suggested to Mr Thakur learned counsel appearing for the Federation of Co operative Housing Societies and Mr Trivedi learned Additional Advocate General of Uttar Pra desh appearing for NOIDA and counsel appearing for the different parties to sit across the table and work out an acceptable modality by which the problem could be best answered and we are happy to note that their efforts have been to a large extent successful and the scope of what at one time appeared to be an unending dispute had now been substantially reduced and confined to certain issues which require to be dealt with by this order of ours
It is agreed that the total number of persons who are entitled to allotment is 2380 and the Federation represent ing the various cooperative societies has drawn up the particulars of these 2380 applicants
At the hearing counsel and NOIDA authorities present in Court had agreed to allotment of 90 acres out of the 269 acres set apart by this Court s earlier order
In a written note submitted by Mr Thakur it has been brought to our notice that if their initial requirement of 130 acres is reduced to 90 acres a plot of 1125 square metres will have to be scaled down to 7773 similarly a plot of 162 square metres will have to be reduced to 1123 square metres a plot of 2025 square metres will have to be reduced to 14045 square metres and a plot of 250 square metres will have to be reduced to 17359 square metres
It has not been disputed that the four categories of plots were stipulated in the scheme
If this scaling down is to be done the plots are 330 bound to be of odd sizes and working out may be difficult
We have therefore decided that instead of 90 acres of land the total area to be released on that account should be 9629 acres in all and different sizes of plots as provided in the scheme shall stand reduced to the sizes indicated below section No As per scheme Plots now to be allotted Sq metres Sq metres 1
1125 100 2 162 130 3 202 150 4
250 180 Apart from 2380 eligible allottees there are separate applications which are before the Court already and are being dealt with separately
To meet their claims we are of the view that 71 decimals should also be set apart and the same would be subject to such orders as the Court may ulti mately make in these cases
In the event of any area being unallotted the same would revert back to NOIDA
The plots to be allotted are to be developed by NOIDA
While the federation and the other petitioners wanted that a three months  limit should be fixed it has been pleaded on behalf of the NOIDA that the time limit should be two years
There is a limit to waiting and human patience and the span of the life of the applicants is not available to be extend ed by NOIDA
Taking an overall picture of the matter we direct that a period of nine months beginning from 1st of March 1990 is the limit within which developed plots shall be allotted to the 2380 entitled persons now represented by the Federation and such other persons as referred to above
The next relevant point for consideration is what should be the price to be paid
We have already indicated that this Court in its order dated 14th January 1985 had not agreed for any escalation charges
More than five years have since been rolled by
Turn of events have taken an unwieldy course
Prices have gone up in every sphere and the rupee has lost its value over the years
To bind NOIDA by the terms of its scheme at this point of time would not at all be fair
We may point 331 out at this stage that these 2380 persons have already deposited huge amounts of money said to be about five crores of rupees with NOIDA and the money has been held on account without utilisation as no final decision had been taken
Undoubtedly this money must be fetching interest
Mr Rama chandran learned counsel appearing for NOIDA has indicated that current rate per square metre is Rs 1200
Taking into consideration the fact that these 2380 members have waited too long for allotment of their plots we are of the view that NOIDA should be permitted to charge  Rs 1000 per square metre
Every member who has deposited any sum of money with NOIDA against proposed allotment shall be enti tled to 12 interest on such amount from the date of deposit till the actual allotment and such interest accrued in favour of the person shall be entitled to adjustment of such interest against actual price of land to be worked out  Rs 1000 per square metre
Balance amount if any shall have to be paid by every person included in the figure of 2380 within three months from now in monthly instalments
The 1st instalment is to be paid on or before 31st March 1990 the 2nd instalment to be paid on or before 30th April 1990 and the 3rd instalment to be paid on or before 31st May 1990
It shall be the obligation of the Federation to duly notify every member of the direction and the time factor forthwith as failure to pay any of these instalments within the time limit indicated above shall disqualify such person from allotment and NOIDA would thereafter be only obliged to refund the money lying to the credit of the defaulter with bank rate of interest
The terms in regard to allotment for the remaining few persons as stated above shall also be the same
Town planning in NOIDA is said to be in accordance with the norms laid down by itself and the same are prescribed by the Board of which the Chief Town and Country Planner of Uttar Pradesh is a member
We direct that all the norms laid down by NOIDA in the matter of development shall be strictly followed
Supervision of this operation of course shall be by NOIDA but we hope and trust that the federation of the different societies would cooperate with NOIDA in this regard
The order reserving 269 acres of land is vacated sub ject to the allotments indicated
The writ petition is disposed of with these directions
There shall be no order as to costs
PSS Petitions disposed of


Summary:
The two appellants and one other person were accused of committing a murder
The second appellant made a confession before a Magistrate
The police submitted a charge sheet against the three accused
Thereafter the prosecution made a prayer to the sub divisional Magistrate that the second appellant may be tendered a pardon under section 337 Code of Criminal Procedure and the Magistrate recorded an order to the effect that he was tendered a pardon under section 337 on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge
Before the Committing Magistrate the second appellant stated that the confession made by him was not voluntary and that he did not wish to become an approver
The appellants were committed to the Court of Sessions and were convicted of the murder and were sentenced to death
On appeal the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence
It was contended by the appellants that the second appellant having been tendered a pardon the joint trial of the appellants was vitiated as it was barred by the proviso to section 339I Of the Code
Held that there was no effective pardon under section 337 Of the Code and consequently the provisions of section 339 did not come into operation in this case
A mere tender of pardon does not attract the provisions of section 339  there must be an acceptance of the pardon by the accomplice and he must be examined as a witness
It is only after this that section 339 comes into play if the accomplice who has accepted the pardon fails to comply with the conditions on which the pardon was tendered
In the present case though a tender of pardon was made to the second appellant there was no proof that it was accepted by him and as such it could not be said that there was in existence an effective pardon under section 337