ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. At the instance of Rajasthan Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited (for short "RIICO"), various extents of lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act with a view to allotting them to the appellant on leases for ninety-nine years for its industrial purposes. On acquisition, an allotment letter was issued to the appellant by RIICO, which contained a stipulation that the allottee would be liable to pay charges at the rate of Rs 1.75 per square metre or the cost of acquisition plus ten per cent, whichever was higher. On acceptance of this allotment letter by the appellant, a lease deed was executed on 10-5-1977. Awards in the cases of acquisitions were made by the Collector on 16-1-1978. It may be noted that, at the time the lease deed was executed or the allotment letter was issued, awards had not been passed. It appears that the award amounts were paid by the appellant to RIICO in terms of the original awards made by the Collector. The compensation was enhanced at the instance of the claimants by the Reference Court. Appeals filed by RIICO in the High Court were also dismissed with the result that the enhanced compensation became payable to the owners of the lands which were acquired for the purpose of allotment to the appellant. After paying the amounts under the enhanced awards, RIICO called upon the appellant to pay to it the additional sums which had to be paid towards compensation under the awards passed under the Land Acquisition Act (for short "the Act") to the owners of the lands. The amounts not having been paid by the appellant, notices were issued by RIICO calling upon it to pay the amounts and giving notices to the appellant that in case of failure to pay the amounts, the leases would be cancelled. It may be noticed that the leases are for ninety-nine years. 4. Feeling aggrieved by these notices and disputing its liability to pay the amount due because of the enhanced compensation awarded by the court, the appellant approached the High Court with the writ petition seeking to challenge the notices issued by RIICO. It may be noticed that the leases are for ninety-nine years. 4. Feeling aggrieved by these notices and disputing its liability to pay the amount due because of the enhanced compensation awarded by the court, the appellant approached the High Court with the writ petition seeking to challenge the notices issued by RIICO. A learned Single Judge held that going by the allotment letter and the lease deed there was an obligation on the appellant to pay the enhanced compensation decreed by the court and the appellant could not get rid of that liability in terms of the transaction between the parties. The writ petition was, thus, dismissed. An appeal filed by the appellant challenging the decision of the learned Single Judge was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the appellant has come up with these appeals. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the relationship between RIICO and the appellant was that of a lessor and a lessee and the relationship was solely and wholly controlled by the terms of the lease deed executed by the parties. The learned counsel submitted that in h terms of the lease deed, there was no obligation on the appellant to pay any further amount to the lessor merely because the cost of acquisition had gone up by an order made by the court in a reference under Section 18 of the Act making enhanced compensation payable for the acquisition of lands under the Act. This contention is sought to be met by RIICO by pointing that in the a allotment letter, which preceded the lease deed, there was a specific stipulation that the appellant should bear the cost of acquisition plus ten per cent thereof or at the rate of Rs 1.75 per square metre towards development charges, whichever was higher. Learned counsel submitted that development charges were contemplated as the cost of acquisition plus ten per cent, the cost of acquisition being the ultimate cost that had to be borne for the b acquisition by virtue of the ultimate award passed in the case either by the Collector or by the court in terms of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that development charges were contemplated as the cost of acquisition plus ten per cent, the cost of acquisition being the ultimate cost that had to be borne for the b acquisition by virtue of the ultimate award passed in the case either by the Collector or by the court in terms of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that the allotment letter and the lease deed must be read harmoniously to understand the rights and obligations of the parties and so read, there would be no difficulty in holding that the appellant was liable for the enhanced amount awarded by the court in terms of the Act. 6. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions. We find that though the acquisition was at the instance of RIICO, the acquisition was obviously for the purpose of making the lands available to the appellant for the purpose of its industrial development. It was in that context that immediately after possession was taken, the allotment letter was issued with a specific stipulation that the cost of acquisition plus ten per cent thereof d would be borne by the appellant. This was followed by a lease deed and the appellant being put in possession. It is difficult to accept the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that we must read the lease deed dehors the allotment letter, which preceded the lease transaction. We are of the view that the High Court was correct in taking the view that the two documents must be read together to understand the rights and obligations of e the parties arising from the transaction as a whole. Reading the letter of allotment and the lease deed in the context of the relevant provisions of the Act and the obligation to pay compensation as determined either by the award or by the court as per the scheme of that Act, we are satisfied that the only reasonable way to understand the purport of the expression cost of acquisition under the Act coupled with the letter of allotment, is to understand it as the final cost or the final obligation that arises under the Act in respect of the compensation payable by the appellant. So understood, we have no hesitation in agreeing with the Division Bench of the High Court that the appellant was bound to pay the additional sums demanded by RIICO. 7. So understood, we have no hesitation in agreeing with the Division Bench of the High Court that the appellant was bound to pay the additional sums demanded by RIICO. 7. In that view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned decision of the High Court. We confirm the said decision and 9 dismiss these civil appeals. 8. We may notice that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 7-7-2006, the appellant had deposited the amounts specified therein, in this Court. RIICO will be entitled to withdraw the said amounts from this Court towards its demand. 9. No costs.