Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PRAKASH PADIA
Conwood Medipharma Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. preliminary proceedings and consents for disposal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner’s plot allotment and payment structure. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. failure to deliver possession impacts project execution. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. demand notices and zero period assertion. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. judicial directions on authorities’ decisions. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. contentions regarding relocation and possession. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 28) |
| 7. possession inquiries regarding plot status. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 8. constitutional validity of government order. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 9. court's ruling on quashing authorities' orders. (Para 32 , 33) |
| 10. mandamus issued for zero period benefit. (Para 34) |
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,
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
