Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Thru. Auth. Signatory Pramod Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Infrastructure and Industrial Dev. Lko. – Respondent
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 all
A party cannot be denied benefits due to issues beyond their control; zero period benefits were affirmed due to delays stemming from governmental actions.
Authority must deliver physical possession of land to the allottee; failure to do so grants the right to zero period benefits under lease agreements.
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.
Actual physical possession must be established for lease obligations; mere issuance of possession certificate is insufficient.
Point of law: Application for review of judgment - It is settled that review powers cannot be exercised on the ground that the earlier decision was erroneous on merit or that a different view was pos....
The Additional Commissioner lacks the statutory authority to review his own orders under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, leading to the annulment of subsequent orders.
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Ravish Agrawal, Sanjay Agrawal For the Respondent : Pushpendra Yadav, R. N. Singh, Akshay Pawar
The court established that powers under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act must be exercised within a reasonable time, and unreasonable delays invalidate such actions.
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
