IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar Chaudhary, Sri Abhishek Khare and Ms. Aishvarya Mathur, Advocate for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Sanjeev Sen, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Waseequddin Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “NOIDA”).

2. The petitioner has challenged the correctness of the order dated 11/09/2023 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, “NOIDA” whereby he has declined to sanction the map submitted by the petitioner for group housing, as well as the order dated 10/04/2024 passed by the State Government in exercise of power under section 41 (3) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 wherein the validity of the order dated 11/09/2023 has been upheld and the revision of the petitioner has been dismissed.

3. The brief facts involved in the present controversy are that the petitioners were joint owners of land measuring 10,870 sq. mtrs situated at khata No. 7 khasra No. 2, Village Rohillapur, sector 132, NOIDA, District Gautam Buddha Nagar. The said land was sought to be acquired by the State Government and notification under section 4 (1) read with section 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 13/02/2006 while the notification under section 6 read with section 17 (1) of the Act of 1894 was issued on 12/06/2006. The aforesaid acquisition proceedings were challenged by the petitioners by filing writ petition No. 18009/2008 before this Court at Allahabad and the aforesaid writ petition which was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 10/08/2009 and the notifications under section 4 and section 6 of the Act of 1894 were quashed.

4. The petitioner filed another writ petition being writ C No. 47873 of 2010 alleging that despite setting aside of the land acquisition proceedings, the NOIDA had started illegal encroachment over the petitioner’s land. In the aforesaid circumstances, a prayer was made by the petitioner that in case the removal of the encroachment over the aforesaid land is not possible then the NOIDA may consider allotment of alternative land in lieu of petitioner’s land. Considering the rival contentions, this Court by means of judgment and order dated 26/11/2010 had disposed of the said petition with a direction to the NOIDA to decide the representations of the petitioner dated 26/06/2010 and 16/07/2010 and pass speaking orders within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

5. It is in pursuance of the directions of this Court, a decision was taken by the NOIDA in its 171th Board Meeting and resolved to execute a registered “deed of exchange” by means of which the petitioners would transfer the ownership of their land of sector 132 to NOIDA and in lieu of the same NOIDA will transfer their ownership of its acquired land of the same size to the petitioner situated at village Sadarpur Sector 45 NOIDA, District Gautam Buddha Nagar.

6. Accordingly, a deed of exchange was executed between the petitioner and NOIDA on 26/03/2011 and from the said date the parties became absolute owners of the land given to them by way of deed of exchange with absolute rights to enjoy the said property.

7. The controversy in the present case has arisen when an application was given by the petitioner for sanction of the map on 05/04/2021 in accordance with New Okhla Industrial Development Area Building Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “Regulations of 2010”) to the Chief Executive Officer NOIDA along with requisite fees. It was further submitted that all the necessary documents along with a copy of the deed of exchange was filed. On 28/07/2021 the opposite party No. 2 informed the petitioners that the Proforma submitted along with the application by the petitioner was incomplete and also that they have not submitted the copies of the plan.

Accordingly, the petitio