Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PRAKASH PADIA
Conwood Medipharma Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRAKASH PADIA, J.
1. Heard Shri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Prashant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vijay Shankar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 as well as Shri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and perused the record.
2. Pleadings have already been exchanged between the parties.
3. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.
4. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayers:-
i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the respondent no.1, as well as the order dated 06.03.2023 passed by the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (Annexure Nos. 1 and 2);
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authority to charge annual lease premium only subsequently from the date of actual physical possession of the plot together with possession letter;
iii) Issue a
Authority must deliver physical possession of land to the allottee; failure to do so grants the right to zero period benefits under lease agreements.
Actual physical possession must be established for lease obligations; mere issuance of possession certificate is insufficient.
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 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.
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.
Authority must provide preferential land allotment to disabled persons per applicable legislation; arbitrary cancellations and excessive interests are unjust.
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
