SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(All) 2917

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PRITINKER DIWAKER, C.J., ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.
M/s Divine Conbuild Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
State of U P and 2 Others - Respondent
Writ-C-No.28625 of 2021
Decided on : 20-11-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Kunal Shah, Suvansit Kumar Jaiswal
For the Respondents: C.S.C, AnujPratap Singh, Swapnil Kumar

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.

Headnote:(A) Lease Deed - Clause 16 - Requirement for external development, specifically the construction of an approach road - Petitioner claims entitlement to a 'zero period' and waiver of interest due to failure of the respondent to provide required infrastructure. Court noted that existence of access road is essential for project construction. (Paras 21-23)

(B) Disposal of Representation - Requirement for considered decision by authority on representations must be adhered to; failure to do so may result in coercive measures on party with legitimate claims (Paras 18, 24)

(C) Judicial Review - Availability of alternative remedies does not preclude High Court from exercising jurisdiction in appropriate cases, especially for prolonged inaction resulting in financial loss (Para 24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was allotted land by UPSIDC for development but faced demands for payment without the promised infrastructure, leading to a writ petition against these demands based on claims of entitlement to waivers and extensions due to inaction by the respondent.

Findings of Court:
The refusal to grant benefits was unjustified; UPSIDC is directed to provide the approach road and waive the associated costs until the infrastructure is in place.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to a waiver of rent and extension of time for construction due to non-provision of access road.

Ratio Decidendi: UPSIDC's obligation to provide construction access per the Lease Deed was affirmed, and the need for adequate infrastructure for development projects was emphasized.

Result: Petition allowed; orders issued against UPSIDC set aside; benefits for zero period and interest waiver granted.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's entitlement to road access and financial obligations. (Para 2 , 3 , 5)
2. arguments of petitioner regarding zero period and approach road. (Para 4 , 16 , 17)
3. court's observations on upsidc's failure to comply with lease terms. (Para 6 , 18 , 19)
4. contention about lack of infrastructure affecting development. (Para 8)
5. lease deed clauses and implications on access roads. (Para 20 , 22)
6. critical importance of providing access roads to fulfill lease obligations. (Para 21)
7. court sets aside previous decisions affirming petitioner's rights. (Para 24)
8. final order granting relief to petitioner. (Para 25)

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;

    “i. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Impugned Disposal Order No. 3743/SIDC/1A/BGA-A/SRJ-C (Vol.II) dated 23.02.2018 passed by the Managing Director UPSIDC (ANNEXURE-P/1);

    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 infrastructural facilities as provided in Clause 16 of the Lease Deed;

    v. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent that period in issue i.e. the period starting from the date of allotment of the subject plot till the said proposed 60-meter road giving access to the subject plot be declared as zero period;

    vi. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to grant waiver of interest for the period starting from the date of allotment of the subject plot to the Petitioner till the said proposed 60-meter road giving access to the subject plot is finally constructed and the payment made by the Petitioner to the Respondent be adjusted towards the premium of the subject plot;

    vii. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to allow the further period of 7 years for undertaking construction, to commence from the date of the completion of the construction of 60-meter-wide road;

3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that a Plot No.BGH-A1, Housing Sector, Surajpur Site-C (Extension) Phase-1, Greater Noida, was allotted to them and pursuant to the said allotment, a lease deed was executed between the petitioner and the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (UPSIDC) on 11.04.2011. Apparently, as per the terms of the lease deed, the petitioner was required to deposit Rs.4,12,52,970/- towards provisional premium and the remaining amount of Rs.23,37,67,830/- was to be deposited in 16 instalments of each Rs.1,46,10,440/.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner was served upon a notice dated 16.06.2017, requiring them to deposit a sum of Rs.17,09,92,750/-by 01.07.2017 failing which, action was proposed to be taken in terms of the lease deed. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to grant of "zero period" and waiver of interest till the 60 meter vide approach road, as shown in the site plan along with Time extension of seven years for construction. The petitioner in that regard had filed a representation dated 25.05.2017 before the Regional Manager of UPSIDC, which was not b

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top