Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, VIKAS BUDHWAR, JJ.
Satya Homes Private Limited and Another – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (C) No. 11108 of 2019, Writ (C) No. 41917 of 2018
Decided On : 17-09-2024
U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 - Sections 2(d), 6, 8, 9, 12-A, 17, 19 - New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Building Regulations, 2010 - Regulations 4, 5, 13, 14 - Writ petitions challenging refusal of building permits for land in notified area - Petitioners purchased land through registered sale deeds and sought permission for construction - NOIDA denied permission citing regulatory powers and ongoing acquisition proceedings - Court held NOIDA's refusal was not backed by adequate statutory reasons and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. (Paras 28, 46)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners purchased land in Khasra Nos. 793 and 795 in Village Gulawali, sought building permits for institutional use, which were denied by NOIDA.
Findings of Court:
NOIDA's refusal to sanction building permits was not justified as it lacked statutory backing and failed to address core issues.
Issues: Whether NOIDA could deny building permits based on regulatory powers and pending acquisition proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that regulatory powers cannot be used to arbitrarily deny building permits and that valid ownership rights must be respected.
Result: Orders of NOIDA set aside; matter remitted for fresh consideration.
JUDGMENT :
VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Since common question of facts and law are involved in both the writ petitions, thus, they are being decided by a composite order.
2. The counsel for the rival parties have made a joint statement that they do not propose to file any further affidavits and the writ petitions be decided on the basis of the documents available on record, thus, with the consent of the parties, writ petitions are being decided at the admission stage.
Facts
Writ (C) No. 11108 of 2019 (Leading Writ Petition)
3. The facts of the leading writ petition are that there happens to be a certain piece of land being khasra Nos. 793 and 795 situated in Village Gulawali, Tehsil and District-Gautam Budh Nagar which was transferred in favour of the writ petitioners by virtue of three registered sale deeds namely (a) Khasra No. 793 admeasuring 4219 square meter on 20.06.2015, (b) Khasra No. 795 admeasuring 3372, square meter on 14.12.2015 and (c) Khasra No. 787 admeasuring 1980 square meter on 02.07.2015. As per the pleadings set out in Para 11, 16 and 17 of the writ petition, the Khasra Nos. 793, 795 and 787 situate in the village in question is notified as a part of Sector 161 of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (in short ‘NOIDA’).
4. According to the writ petitioners, after the execution of the registered sale deeds as referred to above, the writ petitioners preferred an application seeking permission on 16.10.2017 before the Chief Executive Officer of NOIDA, second respondent for construction of club building and guest house. The said application was preferred on the premise that the club building and the guest house are the part of the institutional development as per clause 24.5 of the New Okhla Industrial Development Area Building Regulation, 2010 (in short ‘Regulation 2010’). On 17.10.2017, an order came to be passed by the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA, second respondent whereby the request for sanctioning of the map for construction of club building and guest house was turned down. The said order was subject matter of challenge in Writ (C) No. 14777 of 2018 (Satya Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. State of U.P. and others) in which on 03.05.2018, the following order was passed:
The principal prayer made in the writ petition reads thus:
“(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 17.10.2017 issued by the respondent no. 2. (Annexure-11 to this writ petition).”
Counsel appearing for the respondent-Authority, on instructions, submits that the second respondent shall withdraw the order dated 17.10.2017 within a period of one week from today and seeks liberty to this respondent to initiate fresh proceedings and pass appropriate orders. His statement is recorded and accepted. In view thereof, nothing further survives in the writ petition. Petition is disposed of as infructuous with liberty as prayed. All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open.”
5. Post passing of the order dated 03.05.2018 in Writ (C) No. 14777 of 2018 (Satya Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. State of U.P. and others), the writ petitioners preferred a detailed representation/application before the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA, second respondent which has been rejected by the order dated 15.11.2018.
6. The same led to filing of the leading writ petition wherein the following reliefs was sought:
(II) a writ, order, or direction, in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent no. 2 to reconsider the application for sanctioning of the map to raise construction as in the nature of institutional purposes.
(III) any other suitable order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circ
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.
The deed of exchange is a valid ownership document for sanctioning a building map, and rejection based on the absence of a lease deed is arbitrary and illegal.
Prior development permissions granted under repealed rules remain valid despite subsequent regulatory changes, and cannot be revoked retroactively by new laws.
Point of law: There is a presumption that public officials would discharge their duties honestly and in accordance with law. Even administrative power to be exercised to fulfill real purpose and not ....
The planning authority lacks jurisdiction to halt construction based on private land disputes, which must be resolved by civil courts.
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
