JUDGMENT

HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

1. These appeals are directed against the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 14th October, 2004 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents herein has been allowed and the letters issued by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter called the `NOIDA') dated 13th November, 2002 and 7th January, 2003 have been quashed. Aggrieved by the decision of the Division Bench, the respondents in the High Court are the appellants before us.

2. The facts leading to these appeals are as under:-

3. The writ petitioners-respondents, Societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 namely The Indian Railway Welfare Organization (IRWO), the Air Force Naval Housing Board (AFNHB), the Army Welfare Housing Organization (AWHO) and several others filed writ petition in the Allahabad High Court impugning the letters/notices dated 13th November, 2002 and 7th January, 2003 and other similar notices by which NOIDA had directed the individual members of the Housing Societies to execute tripartite deeds, the other two parties being the Housing Societies, as the lessee, and NOIDA, as the lessor, for the sale of the super-structure which had been built on the land allotted to these Societies and for further restraining the State Government, Noida etc. from charging any stamp duty on the execution of the deeds. The petitioners also pleaded that the land had been allotted to the Societies by NOIDA and that the super-structure thereon had been built solely on the contributions made by the individual

members as the said Societies did not have any corpus of their own. It was further pointed out that the buildings had been constructed in a phased manner over a period of time and, the Societies being the lessees of the land in question were not the owners of the super-structure so as to bind the individual members to the covenants that had been subscribed to by the Societies with NOIDA the lessor. It was further highlighted that NOIDA had not contributed anything towards the cost of construction of the super-structures and that the only role performed by it was the sanctioning of the building plans and the directions to execute tripartite deeds for the sale of the super-structure of the residential units or sub-leases for the land, was a superfluous exercise, which was not backed by any statutory authority, or contractual obligation the more so that it did not fall in the definition of sale under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The basic argument was that the petitioners could not be compelled to buy something which was already their own.

4. The stand of the writ petitioners was controverted by NOIDA and several pleas were raised.

5. It was submitted that a writ petition directed against the issuance of a notice was not maintainable and that as the dispute in effect was as to the terms of a contract, it could not be adjudicated upon by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

6. It was submitted on merits that the petitioners had consented to the execution of tripartite deeds and that the lease deeds entered into between the NOIDA and the Societies clearly stipulated that a sub-lease would be executed between the Societies and the members/allottees and that the sub- lessees herein above referred had to abide by the terms and conditions of the lease deed. It was pleaded that the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the `1976 Act') were binding on the sub-lessees and that the costs of the stamp duty and registration charges were to be borne by them and that Section 7 and 14 when read together provided for the resumption of a site in case of a breach of a condition of the lease or sub-lease.

7. The State of U.P. supporting NOIDA, pleaded that the members of the Societies had sub-leased the land from the Societies on the terms and conditions settled between them and as th