Regulatory authorities cannot arbitrarily deny building permits without valid statutory reasons, especially when ownership rights are undisputed.

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 three others) in which on 03.05.2018, the following order was passed:

“Heard Mr. Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 4.

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 three 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:

“I. a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the Authority (Annexure No.14 to this Writ Petition).

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 a