A party cannot be denied benefits due to issues beyond their control; zero period benefits were affirmed due to delays stemming from governmental actions.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Shri Upendra Nath Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sachin Upadhyay, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rahul Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri J.N. Mathur, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Siddharth Nandwani, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. By means of means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘GNIDA’) has challenged the validity of an order dated 19.10.2023, passed by the opposite party no.1 - the State Government, in Revision No.6430/77-4-23/01 Appeal/23, under Section 41(3) of U. P. Urban Development and Planning Act, 1973 (Annexure No.3 to the petition), order dated 29.05.2024, passed by the opposite party no.1 in Case No.2836/77-4- 24/01/Appeal/23, under Section 41(3) of U. P. Urban Development and Planning Act, 1973 (Annexure No.2 to the petition) and order dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure No.7 to the petition).

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that in the year 2010 GNIDA had invited applications for allotment of land for developing residential township in Sector 16-C, Greater Noida (West) as per scheme code BRS03/2010. The tender submitted by M/s Mahagun India Private Limited (the opposite party no.2) was accepted and an allotment letter dated 19.08.2010 was issued in its favour. On 24.11.2010, GNIDA executed a lease-deed in favour of the opposite party no.2 in respect of land bearing plot No. GH-04, situated in Sector 16C, Greater Noida admeasuring 2,41,570 square meters, for a total premium of Rs.279,27,90,770/-. The opposite party no.2 paid Rs.27,92,79,077/- and the balance amount of premium was to be paid in instalments between the period 19.02.2011 and 19.08.2020. As per the terms and conditions of the lease, the opposite party no.2 was obliged to submit a building plan and the master plan showing the phases for execution of the project for approval within six months from the date of possession and it was required to commence construction within 12 months from the date of delivery of possession, which was the date of execution of the lease- deed. The project was to be completed in a maximum of five phases within a period of seven years from the date of execution of the lease- deed, which could be extended by three years, subject to payment of the stipulated time extension charges. Clause-4 of the lease-deed specifically provided that in case the lessee fails to complete the project within the aforesaid period, including the extended period of 10 years, the allotment and the lease shall be cancelled.

4. On 26.07.2011, GNIDA informed the opposite party no.2 that a correction deed was required to be executed, changing the leased area from 2,41,570 square meters to 1,45,737.80 square meters and the correction deed was executed on 22.04.2014. On 05.05.2014, physical possession of the leased land was handed over to the opposite party no.2 and a possession certificate was issued.

5. On 10.05.2016, the opposite party no.2 wrote a letter to GNIDA, stating that out of the revised area of 1,45,737.80 square meters, physical possession of only 1,37,400.80 square meters had been handed over to it and possession of 8,337 square meters of land had not been delivered to the lessee because of some pending litigation. Subsequently, possession of land bearing khasra no.189, measuring 3,070 square meters and khasra no.257, measuring 950 square meters (totalling to 4,020 square meters), was given to the lessee, but physical possession of land bearin