# Logix Buildwell Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 141
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-11
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 8923 of 2022
- **Bench:** Pritinker Diwaker, Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/logix-buildwell-pvt-ltd-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48727
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

C.S.C.,
Ms.
Anjali
Upadhyay,
Sri
Kaushalendra
Nath
Singh,
Sri
M.C.
Chaturvedi (Senior Counsel)

A. Civil Law-Allotment of Commercial plotNew
Okhala
Industrial
Development
Authority invited tenders for allotment of
commercial plot on lease-The authority
cancelled the allotment of plot in favour of
petitioner and forfeited the entire moneypetitioner deposited the balance allotment
money and requested the Authority to
issue check list for land registrationAuthority paid no heed for registration
while the petitioner was facing difficulty
to get the bank loan without registrationForfeiture of amount of allotment money
is nothing but an unjust enrichment on
part of the Authority-Hence, the Authority
is directed to refund entire amount
deposited by petitioner.(Para 1 to 21)

B. The Public Trust Doctrine is a part of
the law of the land. the doctrine has
grown from Article 21 of the Consitution.
Action/Order of the State would stand
vitiated if it lacks bondafides, as it would
only be a case of colourable exercise of
power. Public Authorities cannot play fast
and loose with the powers vested in them.
A decision taken in arbitrary manner
contradicts the principle of legitimate
expectation. The rule of law is the
foundation of the democratic society.
(Para 14)

The petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

8 All. Logix Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
141
however, the writ petition filed by the
petitioner in the facts and circumstances of
the case was not maintainable.

Question No.III is answered in
positive holding that present writ petition
filed by the petitioner was barred by
principles of res judicata/ constructive res
judicata.

47. While answering the questions
referred to by the larger Bench, let the
present writ petition be now placed before
the Division Bench as per roster on August
29, 2022.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 141
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 8923 of 2022

Logix Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prakash Tripathi, Sri Lalan Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Ms.
Anjali
Upadhyay,
Sri
Kaushalendra
Nath
Singh,
Sri
M.C.
Chaturvedi (Senior Counsel)

A. Civil Law-Allotment of Commercial plotNew
Okhala
Industrial
Development
Authority invited tenders for allotment of
commercial plot on lease-The authority
cancelled the allotment of plot in favour of
petitioner and forfeited the entire moneypetitioner deposited the balance allotment
money and requested the Authority to
issue check list for land registrationAuthority paid no heed for registration
while the petitioner was facing difficulty
to get the bank loan without registrationForfeiture of amount of allotment money
is nothing but an unjust enrichment on
part of the Authority-Hence, the Authority
is directed to refund entire amount
deposited by petitioner.(Para 1 to 21)

B. The Public Trust Doctrine is a part of
the law of the land. the doctrine has
grown from Article 21 of the Consitution.
Action/Order of the State would stand
vitiated if it lacks bondafides, as it would
only be a case of colourable exercise of
power. Public Authorities cannot play fast
and loose with the powers vested in them.
A decision taken in arbitrary manner
contradicts the principle of legitimate
expectation. The rule of law is the
foundation of the democratic society.
(Para 14)

The petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Noida Entrepreneurs Assn. Vs Noida & ors.
(2011) 6 SCC 508

2. Aharwas Singh@ Atarwas Singh Vs LDA, Lko
(2015) 108 ALR 181

3. Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action Vs
U.O.I. (2011) 8 SCC 161

4. Basti Ram Vs Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad & anr.
1999 SCC OnLine All 1850

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker, J.
&
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

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
142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 PlotVI) 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
8 All. Logix Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
143
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
same it was difficult to get the bank loan
approvals to initiate the project in time. The
petitioner accordingly sought extension of
time of six months to pay the installments
due. The Development Authority, however,
did not respond to the above request of the
petitioner and further raised a demand of
Rs.92,73,04,316/- being the 1st, 2nd and
3rd installments payable along with penal
interest failing which the allotment of the
plot would be cancelled. The petitioner was
constrained to file Writ Petition (C) No.
4835 of 2013 (Logix Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.
versus State of U.P. and others). The writ
petition was entertained and an interim
order was passed in favour of the petitioner
restraining the respondent / Development
Authority from creating any third party
rights in respect of the plot in question.
Even during the pendency of the aforesaid
writ petition, the petitioner requested the
Development Authority to provide the
check list for executing the lease deed, but
to no avail.

4. On account of the inaction of the
respondent / Development Authority to
provide the land to the petitioner, the entire
project of the petitioner turned unviable
and the petitioner was constrained to
amend the writ petition by deleting the
prayer for execution of the lease deed and
incorporating the prayer for refund of the
amount of Rs.62,09,59,254/- along with
interest @ 14% per annum from the date of
deposit and till the date of realization.
During the pendency of the writ petition,
the respondent / Development Authority
proceeded to pass an order dated 12.3.2021
whereby the plot allotted to the petitioner
was cancelled on failure of the petitioner to
get the lease deed of the plot executed
within 180 days of the issuance of the
allotment letter and the entire amount
deposited against the plot was forfeited.
The petitioner on receipt of the order dated
12.3.2021 prayed for withdrawal of the writ
petition No. 4835 of 2013 with liberty to
file fresh petition which liberty was duly
accorded.

5. It is further contended by the
petitioner that the petitioner deposited
entire due amount and prayed for execution
of the lease deed and its registration within
180 days of the allotment letter, but the
respondent Development Authority failed
to get the lease deed of the plot executed in
favour of the petitioner and never handed
over the possession of the plot to the
petitioner so that it could carry out it's
project. The respondent / Development
Authority carried on to demand money
from the petitioner without performing the
part and ultimately cancelled the plot
allotted and also forfeited the money
deposited by the petitioner against the plot
allotted which cannot be justified and in
such circumstances, the petitioner has been
constrained to approach this Court by
means of the instant writ petition for the
reliefs stated here-in-before. The writ
petition is liable to be allowed as prayed
with cost imposed upon the respondent /
Development Authority.

6. At the time of entertaining the writ
petition on 7.9.2022, the Court passed the
following orders:-

"Sri Prakash Tripathi, learned
counsel for the petitioner. Sri Kaushalendra
Nath Singh, learned counsel for respondent
nos. 2, 3 & 4.
144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

According to the petitioner, the
respondent Development Authority had
allotted a commercial plot on 28.3.2011
and the petitioner was required to make
deposit of requisite allotment money. The
petitioner has since deposited the entire
allotment money but yet the Development
Authority has failed to handover the
possession of the plot to the petitioner and
has also not executed the lease deed in its
favour.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner submits that more than 10
years
have
elapsed
but
yet
the
Development Authority has not carried
out its responsibility as a result of which
the
petitioner
has
suffered
heavy
financial loss. He submits that had the
possession of the plot, in question, been
handed over to the petitioner in time and
the lease deed could have been executed
at the earliest, the petitioner would have
achieved its goal.

Further case of the petitioner is
that now they are no more interested in
the land in question because the project
is not viable for the company and
therefore, direction be issued to the
Development Authority to refund the
allotment money to the petitioner along
with up to date interest. Further case of
the petitioner is that on one hand, the
respondent Development Authority has
failed to discharge its duties and on the
other hand, the order impugned has been
passed cancelling its allotment and
forfeiting the huge amount deposited.

Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh,
learned counsel for the Development
Authority
prays
for
time
to
seek
instructions as to whether the Development
Authority is willing to refund the allotment
money to the petitioner. Considering this
aspect, a week's time is granted to him to
seek instructions in the matter.

List on 19 April, 2022.

As an interim measure, effect and
operation of the order dated 12.3.2021
(annexure-16 to the writ petition) passed by
the respondent no. 3 shall remain stayed till
the next date of listing."

7. Shri M. C. Chaturvedi, learned
Senior
Counsel
assisted
by
Shri
Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel
for the respondent / Development Authority
has filed counter affidavit. Shri Lalan Sinha
and Shri Prakash Tripathi, learned counsels
for the petitioner have filed rejoinder
affidavit and as such, the pleadings
between the parties are complete. With the
consent of the parties the writ petition is
being finally decided.

8. In the counter affidavit filed by the
respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 certain clauses
highlighting the terms and conditions
mentioned in the scheme have been stated
which are being reproduced here-under:-

"Clause G-

2. Successful tenders shall be
issued allotment letter by registered post.
The allotment will have to deposit 10% of
the letter tendered amount, after adjustment
of earnest money, through bank draft
favour of NOIDA PAYABLE at Noida/ New
Delhi// within 90 days from the date of
issue of allotment letter, through prescribed
challan available in the banks mentioned in
the allotment letter and submit the copy of
the deposited challan (s) In Commercial
Department of NOIDA. In case of failure to
deposit this amount within time, the
allotment will stand cancelled and the
entire earnest money deposited shall be
forfeited in favour of NOIDA.

3. The allottee shall also deposit
due stamp duty (Stamp duty calculation
should also be got verified, from the
8 All. Logix Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
145
concerned Sub-Registrar, Gautam Budh
Nagar by the allottee himself/themselves)
for
lessee
deed
in
treasury
of
District/Guatam Budh Nagar and should
produce a certificate to that effect in
Commercial Department Noida within 180
days from the issue of allotment letter.

H. EXTENSION OF TIME

1.
Normally
extension
or
depositing the allotment money shall not be
allowed. However on receipt of request
from the allottee in within and on being
satisfied with the reasons mentioned, the
NOIDA may grant a maximum of 120 days
extension to deposit reservation/allotment
money, subject to the payment of interest @
(11% normal interest + 3% penal interest)
per annum compounded half early on prorata
basis.
Thereafter,
ordinary
no
extension of time will be granted and the
allotment will be cancelled along with the
forfeiture of the earnest money.

2. In exceptional circumstances
the time for the payment of balance due
amount may be extended the Chief
Executive Officer of the Authority.

N. EXECUTION OF LEASE
DEED & POSSESSION

The allotee will be required to
execute the lease deed of the plot within
180 days from the date of issue allotment
later. In case of failure to do so, the
allotment of plot may be cancelled and
30% of the premium (tendered amount) f
the plot may be forfeited. Amount deposited
towards the extension charges, interest and
other penalties etc. may also be forfeited.
However, in exceptional circumstances, the
extension of time for the execution of the
lease deed and taking over possession may
be permitted. The extension will be subject
to the payment of charges 5% .p.a. of the
total premium of the plot the tendered rate,
which will be calculated on day to pay
basis. After execution of lease deed the
allottee will take over the possession of plot
as the date of taking over of physical
possession and no plea contrary to this
shall be entered.

The
cost
and
expenses
of
preparation, stamping and registering the
legal documents and its copies and all
other incidental expenses will be borne by
the allotte, who will also pay the stamp
duty levied on transfer of immovable
property, o any other duty or charge that
may be levied by any Authority empowered
in this behalf.

X. CANCELATION OF THE
LEASE DEED

In addition to the other specific
clauses
relating
to
cancellation/determination,
NOIDA/the
lessor,
will
its
be
free
to
right
cancellation/determination
of
the
allotment/the lessee of this commercial plot
in as of the following:

i. Allotment having been obtained
through misrepresentation, by suppression
of material facts, false-statement and/or
fraud.
ii. Any violation of the directions issued or
of the rules and regulation framed by
NOIDA or by any other statutory body.

iii. In case of default on the part
of tender/allotee/sub lessee(s) or any
breach/
violation
of
the
terms
and
conditions of the tender, allotment, lease
and/or
non-deposit
of
the
allotment
amount, installments or any other dues.

If the allotment is cancelled on
the grounds mentioned in para (1) above,
the entire amount deposited by the tender,
alottee, lessee and sub-lessee (s) till the
date of cancelation/ determination, shall be
forfeited
by
NOIDA and
no
claim,
whatsoever, shall be entertained in this
regard.

If the allotment is cancelled on
the grounds mentioned in paras (ii) or
146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(iii) above, 30% of the total premium
of the plot shall be forfeited and the
balance, if any, shall be refunded without
any interest and no separate notice shall be
given in this regard.

After forfeiture of the amount as
stated above, possession of the plot will be
resumed by NOIDA, along with the
structures there upon, if any and the
tenderer, allottee, lessee and sub-lessees
will
have
no
right
to
claim
any
compensation thereon."

9. On the strength of the aforesaid
clauses, it is contended that the petitioner
was required to deposit the 10% amount
within 90 days from the date of issuance of
allotment letter else the earnest money
would stand forfeited; the petitioner failed
to submit the stamp duty certificate which
was required to be deposited with the
authority within 180 days of the allotment
letter; as per Clause-H, the petitioner failed
to deposit the amount even after 120 days
further time prayed; the petitioner failed to
comply and deposit the outstanding amount
in terms of the allotment letter and
consequently, the authority could not
proceed to execute the lease deed; Clause-L
sub-clause 2 clearly provided that if the
petitioner wanted to surrender the plot, it
ought to have done so within 30 days of the
allotment and if it chooses to do so now the
total amount or 30% of the total premium
whichever is less, will be forfeited and
remaining amount will be refunded to the
petitioner. In the case at hand, the petitioner
has deposited only 10% of the allotment
money and as such, the entire amount
stands forfeited and the petitioner cannot
claim refund after 10 years of the
allotment.

10. In the rejoinder affidavit, the
petitioner denying the averments made in
the counter affidavit has submitted that
despite repeated requests that the balance
allotment money along with interest and
excess area premium along with interest
had been deposited and a check list be
issued, the Authority failed to respond and
consequently the lease deed was not got
executed and now on account of the fault of
the Authority itself, the allotment has been
cancelled and the amount deposited has
been forfeited. It has been specifically
stated that the Authority granted extension
of time till January 31st, 2012 subject to
deposit of balance allotment money of
Rs.45,62,50,000/-
along
with
interest
thereon of Rs.6,40,68,210/- and excess
premium of Rs.56,45,937.50 along with
interest
thereon
Rs.5,61,261.50.
The
petitioner deposited the amount vide HDFC
Bank Ltd., Challan No. 30056 dated
21.1.2012 and Challan No. 30057 dated
21.1.2012 and requested the respondent
authority to execute the lease deed but the
authority did not respond.

11. A perusal of the respective stand
of the parties, as borne out from their
pleadings, reveals that the moot question
for consideration of this Court is whether
the respondent Noida Authority is justified
in cancelling the allotment of plot in favour
of the petitioner and forfeiting the entire
allotment money to the tune of Rs.62 crores
and odd and further requiring the petitioner
to hand over the possession of the plot on
considering the conduct of the respondent
Corporation.

12. Having gone through the facts of
the case, pleadings of the parties and
perusal of the record, the Court finds that
the respondent Authority failed to perform
and discharge its reciprocal contractual
obligation
listed
on
the
anvil
of
reasonableness
and
rationality.
The
8 All. Logix Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
147
Authority blatantly ignored the difficulties
faced by a developer such as the petitioner
to arrange for the finance after the deposit
of the initial bid money/ performance
security/allotment money etc., with the
Authority. Such finances are usually
arranged
from
banking
institutions
investors and the market. In the absence of
bare
minimum
requirement
of
lease
registration in favour of the developer
arrangement of finances are next to
impossible and the entire project of the
developer is jeopardized. The Authority has
nothing to loose but the developer looses
everything i.e., the project and above all his
reputation in the market.

13. We find that the respondent
Authority is guilty of fulfillment of its
contractual obligations inasmuch as it
failed to provide the checklist necessary for
execution of the lease deed in favour of the
petitioner
even
after
the
petitioner
deposited the entire allotment money. The
petitioner
legitimately
expected
the
Authority to carry out its obligations in the
letter and spirit.

14. The doctrine of
legitimate expectations has been judicially
recognized by the Apex Court as also by
this Court in a catena of judgments. In
Noida Entrepreneurs Association versus
Noida and others reported in 2011 (6) SCC
508, the Apex Court observed as under:-

"38. The State or the public
authority which holds the property for the
public or which has been assigned the duty
of grant of largesse etc., acts as a trustee
and, therefore, has to act fairly and
reasonably. Every holder of a public office
by virtue of which he acts on behalf of the
State
or
public
body
is
ultimately
accountable to the people in whom the
sovereignty vests. As such, all powers so
vested in him are meant to be exercised for
public good and promoting the public
interest. Every holder of a public office is a
trustee.

40. The Public Trust Doctrine is a
part of the law of the land. The doctrine
has grown from Article 21 of the
Constitution. In essence, the action/order of
the State or State instrumentality would
stand vitiated if it lacks bona fides, as it
would only be a case of colourable exercise
of power. The Rule of Law is the foundation
of a democratic society. (Vide: M/s. Erusian
Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of
West Bengal & Anr., AIR 1975 SC
266;Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The
International Airport Authority of India &
Ors., AIR 1979 SC 1628; Haji T.M. Hassan
Rawther v. Kerala Financial Corporation,
AIR 1988 SC 157; Kumari Shrilekha
Vidyarthi etc. etc. v. State of U.P. & Ors.,
AIR 1991 SC 537; and M.I. Builders Pvt.
Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu & Ors., AIR
1999 SC 2468).

41. Power vested by the State in a
Public Authority should be viewed as a
trust coupled with duty to be exercised in
larger public and social interest. Power is
to be exercised strictly adhering to the
statutory provisions and fact-situation of a
case. "Public Authorities cannot play fast
and loose with the powers vested in them".
A decision taken in arbitrary manner
contradicts the principle of legitimate
expectation. An Authority is under a legal
obligation to exercise the power reasonably
and in good faith to effectuate the purpose
for which power stood conferred. In this
context, "in good faith" means "for
legitimate reasons". It must be exercised
bona fide for the purpose and for none
other. (Vide: Commissioner of Police,
Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952
SC 16; Sirsi Municipality v. Ceceila Kom
148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Francis Tellis, AIR 1973 SC 855; The State
of Punjab & Anr. v. Gurdial Singh & Ors.,
AIR
1980
SC
319;
The
Collector
(Distt.Magistrate) Allahabad & Anr. v. Raja
Ram Jaiswal, AIR 1985 SC 1622;Delhi
Administration (Now NCT of Delhi) v.
Manohar Lal, (2002) 7 SCC 222; and N.D.
Jayal & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR
2004 SC 867)."

15. Further, we find that the order of
cancellation of allotment of plot in favour
of the writ petitioner and the forfeiture of
the amount of the allotment money is
nothing, but an unjust enrichment on the
part of the Noida Authority which is not
liable to be permitted in the facts and
circumstances that stand attracted to the
case of the petitioner.

16. This Court in the case of Aharwas
Singh @ Atarwas Singh versus Lucknow
Development Authority, Lucknow reported
in (2015) 108 ALR 181, while considering
a case in which the Lucknow Development
Authority after advertising a scheme for
allotment
of
plots
in
Gomti
Nagar
Extension Scheme after making allotment
and taking deposit of the entire amount
from the public, failed to deliver possession
and execute sale deed even after a lapse of
more than 7 years while keeping the money
in its account and earning interest or
utilizing it in other schemes, then it shall be
incumbent upon the Authority to pay
reasonable interest to the allottes on the
cost of the land or plot deposited.

17. The Apex Court in Indian
Council for Enviro Legal Action versus
Union of India reported in 2011 (8) SCC
161 has defined the "Unjust Enrichment",
as under:-

"UNJUST ENRICHMENT "

152. 'Unjust enrichment' has been
defined by the court as the unjust retention
of a benefit to the loss of another, or the
retention of money or property of another
against the fundamental principles of
justice or equity and good conscience. A
person is enriched if he has received a
benefit, and he is unjustly enriched if
retention of the benefit would be unjust.
Unjust enrichment of a person occurs when
he has and retains money or benefits which
in justice and equity belong to another.

153. Unjust enrichment is "the
unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of
another, or the retention of money or
property
of
another
against
the
fundamental principles of justice or equity
and good conscience." A defendant may be
liable "even when the defendant retaining
the benefit is not a wrongdoer" and "even
though he may have received [it] honestly
in the first instance." (Schock v. Nash, A.2d,
232-33).

159. Unjust enrichment is basic
to the subject of restitution, and is indeed
approached as a fundamental principle
thereof. They are usually linked together,
and restitution is frequently based upon the
theory of unjust enrichment. However,
although
unjust
enrichment
is
often
referred to or regarded as a ground for
restitution, it is perhaps more accurate to
regard it as a prerequisite, for usually there
can be no restitution without unjust
enrichment. It is defined as the unjust
retention of a benefit to the loss of another
or the retention of money or property of
another against the fundamental principles
of justice or equity and good conscience. A
person is enriched if he has received a
benefit, and he is unjustly enriched if
retention of the benefit would be unjust.
Unjust enrichment of a person occurs when
he has and retains money or benefits which
in justice and equity belong to another."
8 All. C/M, Imambara Qadeem, Manauri, Prayagraj & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
149

18. Thus, from the above, we find that
the conduct of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and
5 in not facilitating the execution of the
lease deed in favour of the petitioner cannot
be approved. There was thus total failure on
the part of the said respondents and they
were certainly deficient in rendering
service in terms of the obligations, they
were expected to perform.

19. The endeavour of a Constitutional
Court must always be to ensure that
everyone gets just and fair treatment.
Constitutional
Courts
while
rendering
justice must adopt a pragmatic approach
and in appropriate cases realistic costs and
compensation
must
be
ordered
to
discourage dishonest action. In the case at
hand, we find that the petitioner had
deposited a sum of Rs.62,09,59,254/-
towards the entire allotment money way
back in the year 2011-12, but the
respondent-Authority did not execute the
lease deed of the plot allotted to the
petitioner nor handed over possession of
the same and now have proceeded to cancel
the allotment and forfeit the amount
entirety.

20. We are, thus, of the view that in
the given set of facts that stand attracted to
the case of the petitioner, the petitioner is
entitled to the refund of the entire amount
of the allotment money deposited with the
respondents-Authority.

21. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed. The order dated 12.3.2021 passed
by the respondent No. 3-Deputy General
Manager
(Commercial),
New
Okhla
Industrial Development Authority, NOIDA,
so far as it forfeits the amount deposited by
the petitioners in respect of the plot No.
CC-4, Sector-32, NOIDA, is set aside. The
respondent No. 2- New Okhla Industrial
Development Authority, NOIDA is directed
to refund the amount of Rs.62,09,59,254/-
within 45 days from the date of service of
certified copy of this order before it.

22. So far as the interest part is
concerned, at this stage, we are not passing
any order, leaving it open to the petitioner
to prefer an appropriate application before
the competent authority of the respondent.
In the eventuality of such an application
being filed, it is expected from the
authority to pass appropriate orders after
considering all aspects of the matter
strictly, in accordance with law.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 149
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ C No. 10374 of 2022

C/M,
Imambara
Qadeem,
Manauri,
Prayagraj & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri V.M. Zaidi (Senior Adv.), Sri S.M.A. Iqbal
Hasan, Sri M.J. Akhtar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Manish Goel (Addl. A.G.), Ms. Akansha,
Sharma (S.C.), Sri Pranjal Mehrotra

A. Civil Law-Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950Sections
9
&
117(6)-Quashing
of
notification -Petitioner's case is that the
State wish to illegally and arbitrarily take
possession of the 1500 square meters of
land by invoking powers of resumption
u/s 117(6) of the Act-Petitioners claim to