Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANOJ MISRA, JAYANT BANERJI, JJ.
M/S Logix Infomedia (P) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others – Respondent
Writ - C No. - 18969 of 2021
Decided on : 01-09-2021
U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 - Section 7 - U.P. Industrial Area Development (Amendment) Act, 2020 - Power to the Authority in respect of transfer of land – Petitioner pursuant to an invitation by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority for setting up Educational/Training/Research and Development Institutions/Software IT Units/IT enabled Services and other allied Services etc. petitioner submitted an application for allotment of a plot of land - Held, inter play of the two parts of proviso inserted to Section 7 of the 1976 Act by amending Act as interpreted by a coordinate Bench of this Court (noticed above), is in sync with statement of objects and reasons of amending Act and, therefore, we are in respectful agreement with the view taken therein - To put it simply, under the first part of the proviso the lease deed stands cancelled where land allotted is not utilized for the purpose for which it was allotted within the period of five years from date of possession or within the period fixed for such utilisation in conditions of allotment, whichever is longer - But where that period has expired before the commencement of amending Act, the second part of the proviso comes into play - Under which, Authority is to give a notice to the allottee to use the land for the purpose for which it was allotted within a period of one year and if within the above period of one year the allottee does not use land, then allotment and lease deed stand automatically cancelled - Perusal of notice/order impugned reveals that the period of one year, as envisaged in the second part of proviso to Section 7 of the 1976 Act, has been reckoned from 28.7.2020, which is date of enforcement of the U.P. Act, and not the date of service of the notice. It is the case of the petitioner that the NOIDA Authority approved the time extension sought from the petitioner - This period had already lapsed before 28.7.2020 i.e. the commencement of the U.P. Act - Therefore, in our view, the second part of the proviso to Section 7 of the 1976 Act became applicable as per which the Authority (in this case NOIDA) had to give notice to the allottee to use the land for the purpose for which it is allotted within a period of one year - Thus, in Court considered view, the impugned notice, which refers to the period of one year to be reckoned from 28.7.2020, being the date of commencement of the U.P. Act, is erroneous - Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Anurag Khanna assisted by Ms. Himadari Batra for the petitioner; the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh for the respondent nos. 2 to 5.
2. Considering the nature of the order that we propose to pass as also the ground on which the order is proposed, Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, who appears for the contesting respondent nos. 2 to 5 and the learned Standing Counsel who represents the first respondent do not propose to file a counter affidavit and are agreeable for final disposal of the petition at this stage itself.
3. At the outset, Shri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not wish to press relief (b) in the writ petition. He, therefore, confines his prayer to relief (a), which is to quash the order dated 27.5.2021 passed by the Assistant General Manager (Institutional), NOIDA (respondent no. 5).
4. According to the petitioner, on 24.1.2006, pursuant to an invitation by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (for short NOIDA) for setting up Educational/Training/Research and Development Institutions/Software IT Units/IT enabled Services and other allied Services etc. the petitioner submitted an application for allotment of a plot of land. In response thereto, a reservation-cum-allotment letter dated 7.3.2006 was issued to the petitioner allotting an area of 8000 sq. meter land on lease for 90 years. However, the lease deed, dated 28.12.2007, executed by NOIDA was with respect to an area of 5184 sq. meter. Certain clauses of the lease deed required the petitioner to complete the constructions; obtain occupancy certificate from the competent authority of NOIDA within the validity period of approved building plan; and ensure functioning of the unit on the allotted plot, within five years from the actual date of possession. Though, in case of exceptional circumstances, an extension could be allowed by the lessor subject to extension charges at the rate of 4% of the premium for each year on pro-rata monthly basis. Following the execution of lease, on 7.1.2008, a possession certificate was issued to the petitioner in respect of 5184 sq. meter of land. Thereafter, vide letter dated 11.10.2012, the petitioner was informed that though the area allotted was 8000 sq. meters but in measurement it came out to be 8100 sq. meters. Consequently, for additional 100 sq. meters of land additional amount was demanded. Whereafter, on 7.1.2013, a supplementary lease deed was executed by NOIDA in favour of the petitioner for the balance area of 2916 sq. meters of land, which was followed by a possession certificate dated 8.1.2013 in respect of the additional demised land admeasuring 2196 sq. meters. It is submitted that due to late transfer of possession of the total allotted land, the project could not be completed within time, consequently, on an application made by the petitioner, the NOIDA Authority by its letter dated 1.5.2017 accepted the request of the petitioner for extension of time for construction, on payment of extension charges, from 8.1.2015 to 7.4.2018. Thereafter, on 20.3.2018, an application was moved by the petitioner before the NOIDA Authority for purchasing additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and approval of a building plan. It is submitted that the NOIDA Authority approved the request for allocation of additional FAR on 18.6.2018. Whereafter the petitioner obtained no objection certificate from the Fire Department on 17.7.2018 and from the Pollution Control Board on 27.8.2018. The petitioner then, again, applied to the NOIDA Authority for extension of time for construction, which was approved on 2.8.2019. On 12.3.2020, the building plans of the petitioner were approved by the NOIDA Authority and it also issued a no dues certificate dated 29.7.2020. It is submitted that in view of the disruption on account of Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner again, by means of letter dated 4.8.2020, sought an extension of time from 8.4.202
A party cannot be denied benefits due to issues beyond their control; zero period benefits were affirmed due to delays stemming from governmental actions.
The court ruled that an unregistered lease does not confer rights, and amendments changing the nature of a petition are impermissible if no enforceable rights exist.
The extension of statutory timelines under land acquisition laws must be substantiated with valid justifications; failure to do so warrants quashing of the extension order.
Authority must deliver physical possession of land to the allottee; failure to do so grants the right to zero period benefits under lease agreements.
The court clarified the conditions for the lapse of a proceeding under Sec. 27 of the Act and emphasized the importance of considering inordinate delay and finality of acquisition proceedings before ....
Regulatory powers of NOIDA cannot arbitrarily deny building permits; valid ownership rights must be respected and decisions must be backed by statutory reasons.
Regulatory authorities cannot arbitrarily deny building permits without valid statutory reasons, especially when ownership rights are undisputed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
