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.

JUDGMENT :

PRAKASH PADIA, J.

1. Heard Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kartikey Saran, learned Additional Advocate General State of U.P. along with Sri Vijay Shankar Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri Vineet Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 at length.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the following prayers:-

i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the respondent no. 1 to the extent it refuses to set aside the demand of Rs. 168.37-Crores towards arrears of annual lease rent as well as Rs. 7.38-Crores towards CIC charges (Annexure No. 1);

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the respondent authority to forthwith restore the plot of the petitioner without demanding restoration charges in accordance with GO dated 05.11.2019.

iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the respondent authority to charge annual lease rent only from the date of delivery of actual physical possession of the plot together with the possession letter;

Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the predecessor in interest of the petitioner namely M/s BPTP International Trade Centre Limited was allotted a commercial plot admeasuring 3.80 lakh sq. mt. in Sector 94, Noida. The total premium of the aforesaid plot was Rs. 4,957,829-crores. M/s BPTP International Trade Centre Limited paid Rs.1115.51/-crores, and thereafter sought curtailment of the area corresponding to the payment already made by it. Accordingly. the allotted area was reduced to 85,672.17 sq. mt. corresponding to an allotment premium of Rs. 1,115.51/-crores Since, this amount had already been paid in full a lease deed was executed between the respondent authority and M/s BPTP Intemational Trade Centre Limited on 09.02.2009. The lease deed also provided yearly lease rent equivalent to 2.5% of the total premium of Rs 1,115.51-crores.

4. Thereafter, a request had been made by M/s BPTP International Trade Centre Limited to sub-divide the allotted plot into two smaller plots and this request was accepted by Noida vide letter dated 16.02.2010. The sub-division of plots was permitted pursuant to the government order dated 25.10.2009 and the decision of the Board taken in its 166th Meeting dated 29.12.2009. Certain conditions were imposed while permitting subdivision of plots. Condition no. 3 provides for separate execution of a sublease deed and for independently obtaining the possession certificate.

5. Thereafter, no fresh lease deed was executed and only correction deed was executed between the respondent authority and M/s BPTP International Trade Centre Limited which had the effect of bifurcating Plot no. 2 into two smaller plots, viz, Plot no. 2A (admeasuring 28,328 sq. mt.) and Plot no. 2B (admeasuring 57,344 sq. mt.).

6. M/s BPTP International Trade Centre Limited moved application for transfer of plot No. 2A (28,328 sq. mt.) to the petitioner company. The respondent no. 2 granted permission by letter dated 22.2.2010 to transfer the plot No. 2A to the petitioner. By virtue of the transfer deed executed between M/s BPTP International and the petitioner company dated 24.02.2010, Plot no. 2A admeasuring 28,328 sq. mt was transferred to the petitioner on 24.02.2010 and registered transfer deed was executed between the petitioner and M/s BPTP Intern