As per case facts, the appellant, holding perpetual lease rights for a plot, agreed in 1972 to sell these rights to the respondents for a multi-storeyed building project. The agreement ... hinged on obtaining various permissions, including lessor consent, NDMC/L&DO sanctions, and Urban Land Ceiling Act (ULCRA) exemption. However, building plans were repeatedly rejected, ULCRA exemption proved difficult, and a portion of the land was acquired for road widening. Facing continuous delays and inability to secure approvals, the appellant, in 1979, declared the agreement void and sought possession, while the respondents pursued specific performance. The question arose whether specific performance should be granted given the protracted delays, failure to secure crucial permissions, changed circumstances like a significant increase in land value, partial land acquisition, and the subsequent repeal of ULCRA during the litigation. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled against specific performance, concluding that the contract was impossible to perform and had been frustrated due to the persistent issues and delays. The Court directed the appellant to refund the received consideration with interest and pay additional compensation. The respondents were ordered to return possession of a small, specific portion of the land.