ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, PRITINKER DIWAKER
Divine Conbuild Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Abdhesh Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for Respondents No.2 & 3.
2. The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the development of residential and commercial projects and has filed the present writ petition, seeking inter-alia the following reliefs;
ii. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Impugned Demand Notice No.750-52 dated 22.07.2020 issued by the UPSIDC (ANNEXURE-P/2);
iii. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Impugned Letter No.2017 dated 15.09.2020 issued by the UPSIDC (ANNEXURE-P/3);
iv. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent not to realize the lease premium as well as lease rent from the Petitioner from the date of allotment till completion of the construction of the 60 meters wide approach road and other infrastructura
Sanjana M. Wig v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (2005) 8 SCC 242
Developers are entitled to waivers and extensions when failure to provide essential infrastructure, such as access roads, obstructs project execution, affirming obligations under lease agreements.
The court held that the lessee is entitled to the provision of an approach road as stipulated in the lease deed, justifying waivers of interest and zero period until compliance by the lessor.
Failure to comply with lease conditions justifies cancellation of the lease, emphasizing the necessity for timely establishment of operations by allottees under industrial development regulations.
The cancellation of a lease due to shareholding changes is unjustified when actual possession of leased land has not been delivered, invalidating claims for rents and penalties.
No party can benefit from its own wrong; UPSIDA cannot charge interest for delays caused by its own actions.
The lessee is not obligated to pay premium and interest until actual physical possession of the leased land is delivered to them, emphasizing the authority's duty to provide possession first.
Authority must deliver physical possession of land to the allottee; failure to do so grants the right to zero period benefits under lease agreements.
A party cannot be denied benefits due to issues beyond their control; zero period benefits were affirmed due to delays stemming from governmental actions.
Development authorities must adhere to mandatory conditions regarding possession certificates; failure to comply invalidates lease rent claims and CIC charges deemed illegal must be refunded.
The court ruled that undue delays and inaction by the petitioner firm precluded relief in a writ petition regarding composition charges, emphasizing the principle of laches in legal proceedings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.