Case: Haryana State Indl. Dev. Corpn Vs. Inderjeet Sawhney

furnish us proof thereof within the stipulated period to enable us to issue the allotment letter." * 7. In response to the aforesaid provisional letter of allotment dated 24-2-1989, the respondent wrote a letter dated 4-3-1989 in which it was stated as follows "Offer of half acre Plots Nos. 1 and 2 measuring 1000 sq.m. each (total 2000 sq.m.) is acceptable. I am in touch with the District Industries Centre, Divisional Town Planner and Haryana Financial Corporation. I hope to complete all the formalities very soon." * 8. On the receipt of the aforesaid letter, a final letter of allotment dated 6-7-1990 was issued to the respondent. This was followed by the signing of an agreement between the parties after which the possession of the said plots was handed over to the respondent on 4-9-1990 9. The respondent then filed a Writ Petition No. 5123 of 1994 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Basing his claim on the earlier provisional allotment letter dated 27-12-1984, the respondent, inter alia, prayed that the appellant herein should and ought to deliver the remaining half acre of plot. The appellant herein contended that the letter dated 27-12-1984 had been superseded and a fresh agreement had been entered into between the parties after the respondent herein had accepted 2000 sq.m. of land which had been allotted to him. It was also stated the one of the conditions of allotment vide letter dated 6-7-1990 was that the unit was to be set up within two years from the date of allotment but the respondent had even failed to utilise the plots of land which had been handed over to him 10. The High Court by its judgment dated 14-11-1994 came to the conclusion that there was no reason shown by any correspondence on record as to why the area of the plot which was to be allotted to the respondent vide allotment letter dated 24-12-1984 had been reduced. It did not accept the contention of the appellant herein that while accepting Plots Nos. 1 and 2 measuring 1000 sq.m. each, the respondent had given up his right for the remaining half acre of land. The High Court, accordingly, directed the appellant to allot the remaining half acre of plot within a specified period 11. Thereafter, Review Application No. 41 of 1995 was filed by the appellant herein but the same was dismissed by judgment dated 9-8-1995 12. From the facts as narrated above, it appears that the High Court erred in directing that a further plot of half acre should be allotted to the respondent. The High Court did not appreciate that the correspondence on record of the case clearly shows that the respondent was estopped from making the claim for a further area of half acre after he had accepted the allotment of Plots Nos. 1 and 2 measuring 2000 sq.m. in total. In the present case even though in the letter dated 27-12-1984 the respondent had been offered a plot of land measuring one acre yet by subsequent letter dated 5-1-1989, a revised offer was made whereby he was offered a plot measuring half acre at the old rate of Rs 120 per sq.m. "as a special case". In this letter, it was stated that while making this offer, the case would be considered as closed and the respondent was requested to confirm the acceptance of the area of 2000 sq.m. Vide letter dated 14-1-1989, a conditional acceptance was conveyed by the respondent whereby he had stated that he accepted the half acre of plot but he reserved the right to claim further half acre of plot. To this, the appellant wrote a letter dated 24-2-1989 again stating that half acre of land was offered to him and that it was clarified that this offer was made in his favour as per the consent given by him to the appellants Managing Director during the course of discussion on 3-12-1990. It is in response to this letter seeking the aforesaid clarification that the respondent wrote the letter dated 4-3-1989 wherein he unconditionally accepted Plots Nos. 1 and 2. It is only thereafter that the formal allotment letter dated 6-7-1990 was issued to him which was followed by a formal agreement and handing over possession of the said Plots Nos. 1 and 2 to the respondent. There can be no manner of doubt that the appellant had categorically sated that it was unable to offer the respondent an area larger than half an acre and acceptance of this was insisted upon and the same was given by the respondent vide letter dated 4-3-1989. Had this unconditional acceptance not been given, it would appear, the appellant would not have made the allotment in favour of the respondent 13. It is further to be borne in mind that the letter dated 27-12-1984, on which reliance is placed by the respondent and on the basis of which the High Court had given relief, it was stated that the said letter was only a provisional letter of allotment and it was specifically mentioned therein that the same "shall not give you any legal right for allotment unless a final allotment letter is issued". There was, therefore, no final commitment to allot one acre of land to the respondent and the High Court clearly misconstrued the said provisional letter of allotment of mean as if the respondent had acquired a vested right to obtain an allotment of one acre of land 14. The respondent was not only estopped from claiming an additional half acre of land but even the letter dated 27-12-1984 did not give the respondent any legal right to insist upon the allotment of one acre of land because the only letter of final allotment which was issued in favour of the respondent, was the one dated 6-7-1990 whereby only half acre of land was allotted and the said allotment was accepted by the respondent without demur, till he chose to file the writ petition four year thereafter

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]12. From the facts as narrated above, it appears that the High Court erred in directing that a further plot of half acre should be allotted to the respondent. The High Court did not appreciate that the correspondence on record of the case clearly shows that the respondent was estopped from making the claim for a further area of half acre after he had accepted the allotment of Plots Nos. 1 and 2 measuring 2000 sq.m. in total. In the present case even though in the letter dated 27-12-1984 the respondent had been offered a plot of land measuring one acre yet by subsequent letter dated 5-1-1989, a revised offer was made whereby he was offered a plot measuring half acre at the old rate of Rs 120 per sq.m. "as a special case". In this letter, it was stated that while making this offer, the case would be considered as closed and the respondent was requested to confirm the acceptance of the area of 2000 sq.m. Vide letter dated 14-1-1989, a conditional acceptance was conveyed by the respondent whereby he had stated that he accepted the half acre of plot but he reserved the right to claim further half acre of plot. To this, the appellant wrote a letter dated 24-2-1989 again stating that half acre of land was offered to him and that it was clarified that this offer was made in his favour as per the consent given by him to the appellants Managing Director during the course of discussion on 3-12-1990. It is in response to this letter seeking the aforesaid clarification that the respondent wrote the letter dated 4-3-1989 wherein he unconditionally accepted Plots Nos. 1 and 2. It is only thereafter that the formal allotment letter dated 6-7-1990 was issued to him which was followed by a formal agreement and handing over possession of the said Plots Nos. 1 and 2 to the respondent. There can be no manner of doubt that the appellant had categorically sated that it was unable to offer the respondent an area larger than half an acre and acceptance of this was insisted upon and the same was given by the respondent vide letter dated 4-3-1989. Had this unconditional acceptance not been given, it would appear, the appellant would not have made the allotment in favour of the respondent13. It is further to be borne in mind that the letter dated 27-12-1984, on which reliance is placed by the respondent and on the basis of which the High Court had given relief, it was stated that the said letter was only a provisional letter of allotment and it was specifically mentioned therein that the same "shall not give you any legal right for allotment unless a final allotment letter is issued". There was, therefore, no final commitment to allot one acre of land to the respondent and the High Court clearly misconstrued the said provisional letter of allotment of mean as if the respondent had acquired a vested right to obtain an allotment of one acre of land14. The respondent was not only estopped from claiming an additional half acre of land but even the letter dated 27-12-1984 did not give the respondent any legal right to insist upon the allotment of one acre of land because the only letter of final allotment which was issued in favour of the respondent, was the one dated 6-7-1990 whereby only half acre of land was allotted and the said allotment was accepted by the respondent without demur, till he chose to file the writ petition four year thereafter