Constitution of India – Article 226 – Registered lease deed – Alteration/amendment u/Article 226 – Impermissibility of – Appellants invited bids in 1997 for grant of leases of different plots under the transport city scheme – Respondent’s offer for 27887.50 sq. meters @ Rs.725/- per sq. meter was accepted and the aforesaid plot area was leased out in his favour for Rs.2,06,67,966/- to be paid in four instalments after making the advance payment of Rs.15 lakhs as earnest money – Instalments were to be deposited by October 1999 – However, respondent deposited the final instalment in August 2005 – After negotiations, lease deed was finally executed in March 2006 but for the reduced land of 18262.89 sq.meters rather than the total land of 27887.50 sq. meters – Respondent filed writ petition seeking mandamus against the appellants to execute the lease deed for the remaining area of land i.e.9625.50 sq. meters – Allowed – Correctness of – Held: Parties got the lease deed executed for 18262.89 sq. meters without demur in March 2006 and the transaction which was initiated pursuant to the tender floated by the appellant in 1997 stood concluded after execution of the lease deed – Thus, after the transaction was concluded and the instrument was registered u/s.17 of the Registration Act, it was not open to be altered or amended even by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction u/Article 226 – Mandamus issued by the High Court to execute the lease deed for the remainder of the area is beyond jurisdiction and contrary to law – Impugned judgment set aside– Registration Act, 1908 – s.17.
Constitution of India – Article 14 – Violation of – Undue indulgence granted by appellant-Authority – Held: There is no justification as to what was the reason for the Authority to grant undue indulgence to the respondent in depositing the instalments which ought to have been deposited by 31.10.1999 but were deposited upto 25.08.2005 – In the ordinary course of business, the auction was supposed to be cancelled and the earnest money deserved to be forfeited – Such exercise of power by the Authority is a clear abuse of discretion which is not only violative of Art.14, but also smacks of an undue favour which is always to be avoided – Whenever there is such a business/commercial transaction, it is always to be examined on the commercial principles where equity has no role to play.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.