As-is-where-is allotment terms and limited deeming fiction under the rules barred writ relief and restored cancellation.

An allottee who accepted land on an as-is-where-is basis could not demand a free approach road where the lease deed required the lessee to develop its own infrastructure and did not impose an absolute obligation on the allotting authority. An amendment to Rule 11-A created only a limited deeming fiction for sub-lease purposes and did not transfer ownership or strip the original allotting authority of title or power to cancel the allotment. Where the contract provided performance terms, cancellation, review, appeal and arbitration remedies, a writ court should not be used to rewrite the bargain or bypass the agreed and statutory remedies. The cancellation was therefore restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the allottee could claim an approach road from the development authority despite accepting the land on an as-is-where-is basis and the express terms of the lease deed; (ii) whether the amendment to Rule 11-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Industrial Area Allotment) Rules, 1959 divested the development authority of its title and power to cancel the allotment; (iii) whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of the contractual terms and the statutory/alternative remedies available.

Issue (i): Whether the allottee could claim an approach road from the development authority despite accepting the land on an as-is-where-is basis and the express terms of the lease deed.

Analysis: The lease deed was accepted without protest on an as-is-where-is basis. Its terms showed that the lessee was required to develop its own infrastructure and could not demand facilities beyond the contract. The provision relating to an access road did not create an absolute obligation on the authority to provide it free of cost. The High Court's grant of relief on equitable grounds ignored the literal and mutually intended meaning of the agreement.

Conclusion: The authority was under no obligation to provide the access road, and the claim was not maintainable in the manner granted by the High Court.

Issue (ii): Whether the amendment to Rule 11-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Industrial Area Allotment) Rules, 1959 divested the development authority of its title and power to cancel the allotment.

Analysis: The amendment to Rule 11-A was intended only to facilitate further sub-lease by creating a limited deeming fiction for that purpose. The expressions mutatis mutandis and as if did not transfer ownership or extinguish the development authority's rights in the land. The High Court's view that the State alone became the lessor for all purposes was inconsistent with the scheme of the rules and would have rendered the authority's title and functioning redundant.

Conclusion: The amendment did not divest the development authority of its title or its power to act under the allotment rules, and the cancellation was not without jurisdiction on that ground.

Issue (iii): Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of the contractual terms and the statutory/alternative remedies available.

Analysis: The dispute arose from a contract containing specific performance obligations, a cancellation clause, a review mechanism, an appellate remedy, and an arbitration clause. The lessee had not completed the project within time and had not effectively availed the remedies provided by the governing rules or the contract. A writ court was not the proper forum to enforce or rewrite contractual obligations in such circumstances.

Conclusion: The writ petitions ought not to have been entertained, and the cancellation order could not be quashed in writ jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the cancellation of allotment was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A contractual allotment accepted on an as-is-where-is basis must be interpreted according to its express terms, and a limited deeming fiction in an amendment cannot be expanded to divest the original allotting authority of its title or its statutory power to cancel the allotment; disputes of this nature should ordinarily be pursued through the contractual and statutory remedies rather than writ jurisdiction.

---