Allahabad High Court
M/S Rudra Buildwell Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 February, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Naqvi, Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1640 of 2021 Petitioner :- M/S Rudra Buildwell Projects Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivam Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Anjali Upadhya,Ramendra Pratap Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Heard Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh for the Authority and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the authority on instructions states that writ petition be decided on available materials, as he does not propose to file any counter affidavit and was also not in a position to support the impugned order.
The petitioner challenges an order dated 30.7.2020 passed by respondent no.2, whereby claim for zero period is denied.
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) floated a scheme for allotment of larger chunk of plots for developing group housing project in 2010, inviting applications for the development of a project in Sector 01, Greater Noida (West) bearing Scheme Code- BRS-03/2010 (1). The petitioner through a consortium of 4 companies applied for a chunk of plot and consequently an allotment letter dated 18.8.2010 was issued allotting plot no.GH-02, Sector 1, Greater Noida (West), G.B. Nagar measuring 81800 sq. mt. in favour of the consortium. Pursuant to a bifurcation, a lease deed was executed on 4.4.2011 for 33,538 sq. mt. in favour of the petitioner-company, but it appears that possession of 13500 sq. mt. could not be delivered as the same was in unauthorized possession of one Dhan Singh Bhati, as he claimed to have not received compensation. The matter was brought to the notice in the 104th meeting of the Board of the GNIDA. A spot inspection was conducted, which indicated existence of an old village road along with 6900 sq. mt. of land, where compensation was not received and possession was also not with the builder. GNIDA upheld the claim of the petitioner for grant of zero period in respect of 6900 sq. mt. till 18.8.2014, while petitioner was claiming benefit of zero period to the extent of 13500 sq. mt. The petitioner approached respondent no.1, who on 29.8.2019 upheld the claim of the petitioner for 6900 sq. mt. but for the rest remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The petitioner challenged the order dated 29.8.2019 in CMWP No.42951 of 2019, which came to be disposed of on 21.1.2020 with a direction to the authority concerned to decide the matter within a month. Pursuant thereto, under the order impugned, respondent no.2 granted the benefit of zero period only for 1598 sq. mt.
We are indeed amazed that once the Board in its 104th meeting had resolved to grant the benefit of zero period for 6900 sq. mt, then how could respondent no.2 deny the claim for 6900 sq.mt? Sri Singh learned counsel for the authority does not dispute that there is no fresh decision of the Board altering its earlier resolution passed in 104th meeting. Once the State Government too under its order dated 29.8.2019 had upheld the claim for zero period to the extent of 6900 sq. mt. and had remanded the matter for fresh consideration with regard to claim of the petitioner to the extent of 13500 sq. mt in all, the impugned order ought not to have touched an area of 6900 sq. mt, as the same has already been settled at the level of State Government. The resultant effect of the impugned order is that it has transgressed the limits circumscribed by the order of State Government dated 29.8.2019 by reducing the benefit of zero period from 6900 sq. mt to 1598 sq. mt. The impugned order suffers from non-application of mind rendering the same vulnerable in law.
In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 30.7.2020 is set aside / quashed.
The matter is remanded to the Board to take a fresh decision in the light of observations made above and in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order.
Order Date :- 4.2.2021 N.S.Rathour