A single bench of justice Sanjeev Kumar while dismissing a writ petition has held that once a party has not acted fairly, it cannot seek an equitable relief from the High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian.

The Petitioners before the court had assailed the cancellation of Later of intent issued in their favour by the respondents/state and also the forfeiture of their deposited part payment. The petitioners in view of a policy decision of the government in 2003 regarding decongestion of City and Shifting of Transport Agencies out of city were offered plots at newly identified area subject furnishing of Certain documents including Permanent Residence Certificate (PRC) of Directors/Partners/Proprietors. The petitioners could not produce PRC as they were not the permanent residents of the state. As such no lease Agreement was entered with the petitioners. the petitioners occupied the plots, raised construction but did not pay the balance amount of premium. The respondents after issuing showcase notice cancelled the LOI issued in favour of petitioners and also resumed the plots along with structures raised thereon.

The court while taking the wholesome view of the matter observed that the petitioners have derived benefits out of the subject land more than their investment and have been adequately compensated for the shifting of their business premises. As noted One of the petitioners has even gone to the extent of renting out the godown/office constructed by him to Airtel etc. and made money out of it. He chose not to deposit the second instalment and even the balance premium was not paid during all these years. It is, of course, not paid on the pretext that as per letters of intent, the amount was payable on the execution of lease agreement. The terms and conditions of the letters of intent have been observed in breach by the petitioners. Apart from other terms and conditions, the submission of PRC of the Directors/partners/ proprietors was sine qua non for formal allotment of land. 

The court further observed that the fact remains that the possession handed over to the petitioners was temporary and was subject to production of certain documents including PRC, which the petitioners failed to produce. It is also not disputed before me that at no point of time, formal order of allotment was even issued in favour of the petitioners, not to speak of execution of lease agreement. The petitioners enjoyed possession for almost seven years. Anyway the respondents woke up from slumber in the year 2007 and ultimately in the year 2011, not only withdrew the letters of intent issued in favour of the petitioners but also resumed possession of the plots. Better late than never.

The court further observed that I do not see any equities tilting in favour of the petitioners, though they may be justified in pressing into service the technical plea that it was because of omission on the part of respondents to execute the lease agreement, they did not pay the balance premium. There is, however, no plausible explanation given by the petitioners as to why construction raised by them on the allotted plots was not used by them for operating their transport agencies and was rather let out for commercial purposes. The petitioners have not acted fairly and, therefore, are not entitled to seek equitable relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition.