OM 9 Square City Pvt Ltd v. Rail Land Development Authority

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondent no. 1, i.e., Rail Land Development Authority, to withdraw its objections to the approved development plans and to provide the assured amenities and fulfill the statutory obligations in a timely manner, to enable the uninterrupted execution of the project titled as “Grant of Lease of Railway Land for 99 Years for Development including Re-development of existing Railway Colony (34 Units Type-II quarters), Railway Colony at Rajkot” (“the project”).

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 1 had floated a tender/„Request For Proposal‟ (“RFP”), on 17th September, 2021, for the present project, inviting bids from the developers for leasing and developing the land in Rajkot, Gujarat.

3. It is submitted that the consortium of the petitioner emerged as the highest bidder, pursuant to which, the respondent no. 1 issued a letter of acceptance dated 20th January, 2022. Thereafter, between 2021 and 2023, joint inspections and measurements were carried out by the petitioner and respondent no. 2, whereby, certain discrepancies were disclosed resulting in material changes of the agreement between the parties. Consequently, the project was converted into a fully residential project.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the letter dated 11th January, 2024, by way of which, the petitioner submitted plans to the respondent no. 1, in terms of Clause 10.[1] of the agreement.

5. It is submitted that since no headway was made, a Right to Information (“RTI”) application was filed by the petitioner, subsequent to which, the petitioner received a copy of the letter dated 15th January, 2024, written by respondent no. 1 to the Town Planning Officer, Rajkot Municipal Corporation. The said letter dated 15th January, 2024, is reproduced as under:

6. By referring to the aforesaid letter, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the plan, as submitted by the petitioner to respondent no. 1, was duly forwarded by respondent no. 1 to the Rajkot Municipal Corporation.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relies upon communication dated 06th June, 2024, issued by the respondent no. 1 to the petitioner, wherein, the fact of re-submission of the plan by the petitioner on 19th April, 2024, is recorded. However, objection has been raised that the plans could be examined only after handing over of the development land.

8. This Court is informed that the land was handed over to the petitioner in two phases, viz. on 19th April, 2024 and 18th September, 2024.

9. Attention of this Court is also drawn to the Article 10 of the agreement dated 26th March, 2024, and in particular, to Articles 10.[1] and 10.2, which are reproduced as under: “xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx”

10. By referring to the aforesaid covenants, as occurring in the agreement, it is the submission on behalf of the petitioner that there is no provision in the agreement that first the handing over of the land has to be done, before the development plans would be considered.

11. It is submitted that the petitioner has already submitted the plans to the respondent no. 1, in terms of the agreement, which already stand approved by the RMC. Thus, the stand of the respondent no. 1, that they should submit fresh development plans is not tenable.

12. Responding to the present writ petition, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that contractual disputes are being raised in the present writ petition. He submits that there is an Arbitration Clause in the agreement and that the petitioner ought to approach the learned Arbitrator, in this regard.

13. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court notes the categorical submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has already submitted the development plans to respondent no. 1, in terms of the agreement.

14. This Court also takes note of the communication by respondent no. 1, which clearly shows that the plans, as submitted by the petitioner, were duly forwarded to the Rajkot Municipal Corporation. This Court also takes note of the submission that the said plans already stand approved by the Rajkot Municipal Corporation.

15. Considering the submissions made before this Court, this Court is of the view that the representation of the petitioner dated 06th August, 2025, in this regard, ought to be considered by the respondent no. 1.