Allahabad High Court
M/S Sunshine Trade Tower Pvt Ltd vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 19 July, 2024
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:115187-DB Judgement Reserved on 29.05.2024 Judgement Delivered on 19.07.2024 Court No. 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9348 of 2023 Petitioner :- M/S Sunshine Trade Tower Pvt Ltd Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Singhal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh Connected with Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7223 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S Sunshine Trade Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Singhal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21276 of 2023 Petitioner :- M/S Sunshine Trade Tower Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Singhal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
(Per: Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)
1. Heard Shri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Siddharth Singhal, Shri Siddharth Nandwani and Shri Vishwa Mohan Sharma, learned Advocates for the petitioner, Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel alongwith Shri F.A. Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority alongwith Shri Ritham Gupta, Advocate in the present matter as well as in Connected Writ C Nos.7223 of 2024 and 21276 of 2023.
2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard together and decided by a common judgement.
3. In Writ C No. 9348 of 2023, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.09.2022, whereby the State Government has granted partial benefit of Zero period to the petitioners. In the connected writ petitions, there is a challenge to different demands raised by the respondent no.2 before proceeding to sanction the revised plan of construction of the commercial units.
Brief History of the Litigation
4. The record reflects that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its office at C-10, Sector-10, Noida. The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (in short, 'Noida Authority') launched a scheme for allotment of the commercial plots for Builders/Developers at Noida for establishment of commercial units. The said scheme was opened on 22.09.2011 and the last date for submission of tender was 14.10.2011. In pursuance to the said scheme, being an eligible Builder/Developer, the petitioner company submitted its bid, which was accepted. Thereafter, a lease deed was executed between the parties on 11.01.2012 qua the Plot No. 5-A, Sector 94 Noida (in short "the plot") for total sale consideration of Rs. 1,33,86,63,730/-.
5. As per the site plan, which is annexed alongwith the lease deed, the said Plot No.5-A is situated at 45 metre wide road on the North side and at 24 metre wide road on the East side. The Plot No. 5-B is situated at the South side of the Plot No.5-A and Plot No.5 is situated at the West side of the Plot 5-A. After execution of the said lease deed, the possession of the said plot was also handed over to the petitioner on 11.01.2012 itself.
6. After execution of the lease deed and getting the possession of the plot, the petitioner had applied for sanction of map to carry out development activities over the plot, which was accorded by the Noida Authority on 06.03.2012.
7. According to the sanctioned plan approved by the Noida Authority, the main entry of the plot was from 45 metre wide road (North Side) and the side entry and exit was proposed from the 24 metre wide road. The said sanction plan was valid for a period of five years. It is the case of the petitioner that against the total sale consideration of Rs.1,33,86,63,730/-, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.39,35,67,138/-, which includes a sum of Rs.26,77,32,746/-, which was deposited prior to the execution of the lease deed and the sum of Rs.12,58,34,392/- (Rs.6,69,33,187+Rs.5,89,01,202/-) was also deposited towards the first instalment, which includes principal amount and the interest amount. Thus, the petitioner has paid a total sum of Rs.33,46,65,933/-, therefore, as on date, the balance premium amount comes to Rs. 100,39,97,798/-. As per the aforesaid sanction plan, the elevation, design and set back were planned by the petitioner, considering the main entry of the plot from the 45 metre road, as was sanctioned by the Noida Authority.
8. It is the case of the petitioner that the said 45 metre wide road on the North side of the plot was fully encroached and no such road exists on the grounds till date and so far as the 24 metre wide road is concerned, which was situated on the East side of the plot, it was a sandy, unpaved, non-motorable road with big pits and holes on it. Therefore, it is claimed that though the petitioner initially started the construction work but was forced to halt the development due to the restraint orders passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and further for want of the construction of road as provided under the lease deed as well as the sanctioned plan.
9. After sanction of the map by the Noida Authority, the petitioner herein got the approval from the District Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar for starting the excavation work over the plot in question. However, the aforesaid sanction of excavation work came to an end in terms of the orders issued by the State Authority dated 03.09.2012, 05.10.2012 and 04.07.2013 in pursuance of the restraint orders passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT).
10. Furthermore, in the month of September 9, 2013, a notice was issued from the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar to stop the construction in terms of the order dated 17.09.2013 passed by the National Green Tribunal in OA No. 158/2013 titled as 'Amit Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors' in respect of ongoing dispute of preservation of Okhla Bird Sanctuary, whereby, the National Green Tribunal has directed the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police to stop any construction activity within 10 Kilometre range from the Okhla Bird Sanctuary. In view of the aforesaid measure, the petitioner has stopped the construction activities in toto.
11. Finally, the dispute qua the Okhla Bird Sanctuary was put at rest with the issuance of the notification on 19.08.2015 by the Central Government, whereby the Central Government specified 19.08.2015 as the date from which no project proponent shall be permitted to raise construction over the plot of land falling within 100 metre from the Eastern, Western and Southern boundaries and 1.27 Kilometres from the Northern boundary of New Okhla Bird Sanctuary. Thus, the legal impediment in carrying out the construction on account of continuous stay order passed by the NGT continued till 19.08.2015. However, the petitioner could not start the construction activities again as 45 metre wide road was not available and the same was completely encroached upon and the 24 metre wide road was also not constructed. Thus, the construction activity could not be started despite the permission for excavations was granted by the authority concerned. Relying upon the aforesaid factual state of affairs existing in the entire vicinity of the Noida, the Noida Authority had issued an Office Order dated 28.03.2016, which provided for declaration of Zero period for the period during which the project proponent was restrained from raising construction over the plot of land allotted to the development authority on account of the factors particularly stated therein. The aforesaid Office Order dated 28.03.2016 was also accorded approval in the 192th Board meeting of the Noida Authority, which reads as under:-
"नवीन ओखला औद्योगिक विकास प्राधिकरण मुख्य प्रशासनिक कार्यालय, सैक्टर-6, नोएडा, गौतमबुद्ध नगर पत्र संख्याः नोएडा/वि०नि०/2016/125 दिनांक:- 28 मार्च, 2016 कार्यालय आदेश नौएडा प्राधिकरण के संचालक मण्डल की 188वीं बैठक दिनांक 14.03.2016 के अनुपूरक मद संख्या-2 पर सम्यक विचरोपरान्त संचालक मण्डल द्वारा दिये गये निर्देशों के क्रम में शून्यकाल के सम्बन्ध में निम्नलिखित निर्देश / प्रक्रिया प्रसारित की जाती है।
(क) प्राधिकरण की समस्त प्रकार की परिसम्पत्तियों के लिये निम्न परिस्थितियों में शून्यकाल अवधि की अनुमन्यता के सम्बन्ध में आंवटी के आवेदन पर विचार किया जायेगा-
1. यदि किन्ही उपयुक्त कारणों से प्राधिकरण द्वारा आवंटी/विकासकर्ता को आवंटित भूमि/भूखण्ड का कब्जा हस्तगत नहीं हो रहा हो।
2. शांति व्यवस्था की स्थिति बिगड़ने के कारण अथवा आवंटित भूमि पर अतिक्रमण आदि होने के कारण आवंटी/विकासकर्ता द्वारा आवंटित भूमि पर निर्माण/विकास कार्य किया जाना सम्भव नहीं हो पा रहा हो ।
3. न्यायालय के स्थगन आदेश रहने के कारण आवंटन/पट्टा प्रलेख/कब्जे की प्रक्रिया पर रोक हो अथवा निर्माण कार्य आगे नहीं किया जा सकता हो।
4. शासनादेश/प्राधिकरण बोर्ड के आदेशों के परिप्रेक्ष्य में पट्टा प्रलेख निष्पादित न हो सका हो।
5. यदि किसी भूखण्ड का कब्जा दिया जा चुका है तथा पट्टा प्रलेख का निष्पादन भी हो चुका है, परन्तु आवंटित भूखण्ड के लिये कोई पहुँच मार्ग नहीं है जिसके कारण आवंटित भूखण्ड पर निर्माण/विकास किया जाना सम्भव नहीं हो पा रहा हो।
6. जिन योजनाओं में भूमि आवंटन के समय विवरणिका में ये उल्लिखित है कि भूमि का अवशेष आवंटन/आरक्षण उपलब्ध होने के उपरान्त किया जायेगा तथा यह भी सम्भव है कि यह भूमि contigious न हो, ऐसी स्थिति में उपलब्ध हुई भूमि का contigious न होने की दशा में शून्यकाल का लाभ अनुमन्य नहीं किया जायेगा ।
(ख) शून्यकाल के सम्बन्ध में सम्यक विचारोंपरान्त निर्णय लिये जाने को उपरान्त किश्तों के पुर्ननिर्धारण की कार्यवाही निम्नानुसार की जायेगी-
यदि किसी भूखण्ड के सम्पूर्ण क्षेत्रफल के लिये कार्यबाधित अवधि का शून्यकाल घोषित किया जाता है तो शून्यकाल अवधि में पड़ने वाली किश्तों को (प्रीमियम + साधारण ब्याज) शून्यकाल की अंतिम तिथि से आगे शिफ्ट कर दिया जायेगा ताथा शून्यकाल अवधि का कोई दण्ड ब्याज नहीं लिया जायेगा।
आगामी किश्तों में समाहित (merge) करते हुए पुनरीक्षित किश्तें बना दी जायेगी । आंशिक भाग, जिसके लिए शून्य अवधि घोषित की गयी है, पर आरोपित दण्ड ब्याज नहीं लिया जायेगा ।
3. शून्यकाल अनुमन्य किये जाने के विषय में सम्बन्धित प्राधिकरण में गठित स्थायी समिति के द्वारा इस हेतु प्राप्त प्रत्येक प्रकरण में गुण-दोष के आधार पर विचार करते हुए मुख्य कार्यपालक अधिकारी को अपनी संस्तुति की जायेगी।
उपरोक्त व्यवस्था समस्त प्रकार की परिसम्पत्तियों पर लागू होगी।
(रमा रमण) मुख्य कार्यपालक अधिकारी प्रतिलिपि निम्नलिखित को सूचनार्थ एवं अनुपालन हेतु -
1. विशेष सचिव, औद्योगिक विकास विभाग, उत्तर प्रदेश शासन का सूचनार्थ एवं आवश्यक कार्यवाही हेतु ।
2. अपर मुख्य कार्यपालक अधिकारी (पी) / (आर) ।
3 उप मुख्य कार्यपालक अधिकारी (एस) ।
4. वित्त नियंत्रक ।
5. मुख्य वास्तुविद् नियोजक ।
6. समस्त प्रभारी अधिकारी, परिसम्पत्ति अनुभाग ।
मुख्य कार्यपालक अधिकारी"
12. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to draw the attention of the authority with regard to the non-availability of 45 metre wide road on the North side as well as 24 metre wide road on the East side, which has caused hindrance in initiating the development work by the petitioner herein. When the Noida Authority did not pay any heed to the representations made by the petitioner, the petitioner had filed a Writ C No. 24496 of 2017 (M/s Sunshine Tradetower Pvt. Ltd. vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority & 2 Others), which was disposed of vide order dated 29.05.2017, with following observations:-
"Heard Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Advocate, with Mr. Om Prakash Yadav and Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Advocates, for the petitioners and Mr. Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
By consent of learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this writ petition by the following order:
The petitioners shall make a fresh representation within a period of three weeks from today for redressal of their grievance to the Chief Executive Officer, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority. The Chief Executive Officer shall consider and decide the representation on merits in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order and in light of the Zero Period Policy dated 28.03.2016, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioners are directed to produce a copy of this order alongwith a copy of the writ petition and annexures before the Chief Executive Officer within a period of ten days from today. It is open to the concerned authorities to make a spot inspection, if necessary, to verify the facts.
The statement made by learned Senior Counsel that the petitioners shall pay one more instalment within a period of three months from today, is recorded and accepted. In view thereof, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners for recovery of the amount, till the representation is decided."
13. Since, the respondent authority failed to take any action despite the order dated 29.05.2017 passed by this Court, the petitioner filed yet another Writ Petition (C) No.17499 of 2019 (M/S Sunshine Trade Tower Private Ltd. Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and 2 Others), which was again disposed of vide order dated 21.05.2019 with the following observations:-
"Heard Shri Navin Sinha, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Devansh Rathore and Shri Dhruv Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, for respondent nos. 1 & 2 and learned standing counsel for the State - respondent no. 3.
The petitioner, in this writ petition, is seeking a direction to the respondents not to recover the lease dues from 11.01.2012 till the date the Project is provided with proper approach road(s).
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a lease, in respect of commercial plots, was granted to the petitioner on 11.01.2012. Thereafter, there was a series of litigations before the National Green Tribunal, in which several interim orders were passed, which were extended from time to time.
On 14.08.2013, an order was passed by the National Green Tribunal, as mentioned in the order dated 17.09.2013, directing no further constructions be made in respect of 49 units, till the next date of hearing. This interim order was, subsequently, extended and thereafter, an order was passed on 28.10.2013, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents; wherein, the Tribunal has observed that all building constructions, made within 10 kms. radius of Okhla Bird Sanctuary or within distance of eco-sensitive zone, as may be prescribed by the notification issued by the Ministry of Environment & Forest, shall be subject to the decision of the National Board for Wild Life and till the clearance is given by the National Board for Wild Life, the authority shall not issue completion certificates to the Projects.
Admittedly, the notification by the Ministry of Environment & Forest was issued on 19.08.2015 (Annexure No. 12 to the writ petition). Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, claims zero period for this period as well as the period till the approach road is granted to the Project of the petitioner. In respect of its grievance, the petitioner is stated to have preferred a representation on 05.03.2019 (page no. 312 to the writ petition) before the Chief Executive Officer, New Okhla Industrial Development Area, Noida.
No useful purpose will be served by keeping the matter pending. We dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Chief Executive Officer, New Okhla Industrial Development Area, Noida (respondent no. 1) to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 05.03.2019, in accordance with law, having regard to various directions of the National Green Tribunal as well as the notification of the Ministry of Environment & Forest dated 19.08.2015, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in his Office.
It is made clear that the Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merit."
14. When the grievance of the petitioner was not addressed despite the aforesaid directions issued by this Court, the petitioner has filed another writ petition being Writ Petition (C) No. 29028 of 2019 (M/S Sunshine Trade Tower Private Ltd. Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority) with the following prayer:-
"A) Writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.1 not to recover lease dues from date of lease l.e. 11th January 2012 till such day and date, the Project is provided with proper approach road(s); and/or B) Suitable direction, orders or writs Including writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no 1 to 3 to provide to the petitioner a 'pucca' approach roads (45 mtrs. In front and 24 intrs. on the side) to the Land l.e. bearing Flot No. 5A, situated at Sector 94, Noida, admeasuring 10,210.00 sq. intrs. as allotted and leased to the petitioner by the Respondent No.1; and / or C) Sultable direction, orders or writs including writ ih the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no 1 to 3 to grant to the petitioner's Impugned land under the Zero Period policy as per 10 procedure or a moratorium from the period of Inception of the lease to the Land l.e. Plot No. 5A, 1 situated at Sector, 94, Noida, admeasuring 10,210.00 sq. mtrs. from date of lense l.e. 11th January 2012 till such day and date, the Project is prov led with proper approach road(s) and not to charge any charges for the said period, including but not limited to extension charges etc.; and / or D) Suitable direction, orders or writs including writ in the nature of mandamus thereby, restraining the Respondents from Issuing any demand upon the Petitioner and from taking any coercive action against the allotment and lease in respect to the Land 1.e. Plot No. 5A, situated at Sector 94, Noida, admeasuring 10,210.00 sq. mtrs. as allotted and leased to the petitioner by the Respondent No. 1; and/or E) Suitable direction, orders or writs including writ in the nature of Mandamus thereby, commanding the Respondent No. 1 to refund with interest to the petitioner, excess amount(s) pald under duress by the petitioner to the respondent No. 1 alongwich interest 18% p.a. with monthly rests; and/or F) Suitable directions, orders or writs. in addition to and/or in substitution of what has been prayed above as may be found expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case; and G) Sultable interiin direction, order or writ;
H) Interim orders in the nature of writ of Mandamus, thereby restraining the Respondents from issuing any demand upon the 'Petitioner in respect to the 1 Land and further, restraining the Respondents from taking any coercive action against the allotment and lease as granted to the petitioner in respect. to "the Land je. Plot No. 5A, situated at Sector 94, Noida, admeasuring 10,210.00 sq. mtrs. as allotted and leased to the petitioner by the Respondent No. 1 during the pendency of the present petition; and"
15. The said Writ Petition (C) No. 29028 of 2019 (M/S Sunshine Trade Tower Private Ltd. Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority) was entertained by this Court and vide order dated 17.09.2019 the Authority was called upon to file counter within three weeks. In view of the aforesaid order, vide order dated 14.02.2020, the Noida Authority had rejected the claim of the petitioner for the grant of benefit of zero period to the petitioner.
16. Since the Noida Authority has passed the speaking order on 14.02.2020, therefore, the Writ Petition (C) No. 29028 of 2019 (M/S Sunshine Trade Tower Private Ltd. Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority) filed by the petitioner, was rendered as infructuous and accordingly, the petitioner moved an application to withdraw the same. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a complaint before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (in short, 'RERA'), which was registered as Complaint I.D. NCR 144/11/0823/2019. The technical team had inspected the site in question and thereafter, after hearing the parties at length, RERA had passed a detailed order dated 22.10.2020 asking the petitioner to pursue the remedies available before the State Government. Thereupon, the revision was filed by the petitioner before the State Government, which was disposed of vide order dated 24.12.2020, with a direction to the Chief Executive Officer, Noida to take a decision for grant of Zero period on the basis of physical verification of the facts recorded by the RERA in its order dated 22.10.2020.
17. Pursuant to the order dated 24.12.2020 passed by the Revisional Authority/State Government, a joint inspection on the site of the petitioner was carried out on 11.01.2021 and in the Inspection Report, following facts were observed:-
"1. उत्तर दिशा में स्थल तक पहुँच मार्ग 24 मीटर रोड के माध्यम से आवंटन के समय से ही उपलब्ध था, लेकिन आवंंटी द्वारा डबल बेसमेंट की खुदाई किये जाने कारण 24 मीटर का पक्का निर्माण बाधित रहा। इसका पक्का निर्माण दिनांक 18/02/2020 को पूर्ण हुआ (पृष्ठ स० 1479/C) ।
2. आवंटी के भूखण्ड के उत्तर पूर्वी कोने तक 45 मीटर चौडी सडक दिनांक 06.06.2014 में पूर्णतः निर्मित एवं निर्बाध होना पाया गया है (पृष्ठ सं0-985/सी)। परंतु उक्त उत्तर पूर्व कोने के आगे दक्षिण पश्चिम की तरफ की सड़क निर्मित नहीं है तथा उस पर आबादी आदि मौजूद है। भू-लेख विभाग की आख्यानुसार यह भू क्षेत्र अधिगृहित नहीं है। वर्क सर्किल 9, नौएडा द्वारा अवगत कराया गया है कि उक्त सड़क की कुल लम्बाई 203.5 मीटर है, जिसमें भूखण्ड के सामने की 80.90 मीटर लम्बाई की सड़क बाधित है। निरीक्षण से यह स्पष्ट हुआ कि आवंटित भूखण्ड तक 45 मीटर की सड़क का पहुँच मार्ग मौजूद है। हालाकि आवंटित भूखण्ड के पूर्व से पश्चिम की भुजा की लम्बाई तक 45 मीटर रोड पूर्ण नहीं है। 45 मीटर सडक के किनारें स्थित आवंटित भूखण्ड होने के आधार पर किसी भी आवंटी से अथवा आवंटित परिपेक्ष्य में कोई अतिरिक्त शुल्क का प्रभार विभाग/भवन प्रकोष्ठ, नौएडा के अनुसार नहीं लिया जाता। निष्कर्षतः भूखण्ड 24 मीटर चौड़ी सडक से लगा हो अथवा 45 मीटर सड़क से लगा हो इसका कोई प्रभाव आवंटित भूखण्ड के मूल्यांकन पर नहीं डालता है।
3. आवंटी द्वारा आवंटित भूखण्ड पर कब्जा लेने के बाद दिनांक 06.03.2012 को अपना नक्शा स्वीकृत कराया गया है। नक्शा स्वीकृत कराने के बाद आवंटी द्वारा आवंटित भूखण्ड पर बेसमेंट की गहरी खुदाई करते हुए अपना निर्माण कार्य प्रारम्भ किया गया। बेसमेंट की गहरी खुदाई के कारण 24 मीटर चौडी़ सड़क के निर्माण में बाधा बनी रही (पृष्ठ सं0-730/सी)।
4. आवंटी के भूखण्ड तक 45 मीटर चौडी़ पुख्ता सड़क वर्ष 2014 में ही बन चुकी थी। आवंटी द्वारा अपना निर्माण कार्य प्रारम्भ कर सुचारू रखा गया, इससे स्पष्ट है कि आवंटी को आवंटित भूखण्ड तक पहुँच मार्ग न होने की स्थिति नहीं थी।"
18. On the basis of the aforesaid inspection report, the Senior Assistant submitted its report to the Office Superintendent/Assistant General Manager (Commercial) and Special Officer (Commercial) on 04.03.2021 and relying upon the same, the Special Officer (Commercial) has passed an order dated 22.04.2021, rejecting the representation of the petitioner dated 05.01.2021. Against the aforesaid order dated 22.04.2021, the petitioner again preferred a revision under Section 41(3) of the U.P. Urban Planning Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act, 1973') read with Section 12 U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act, 1976'). Since, the said revision was not decided, the petitioner had filed another Writ Petition No. 12924 of 2021 (M/B M/S Sunshine Trade Tower Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and Another), which was disposed of vide order dated 25.06.2021 with the direction to the Revisional Authority to dispose of the revision petition within three months.
19. In the meantime, on 14.06.2022, the Noida Authority has passed an order of cancellation of the lease deed of the petitioner. Thereupon, vide order dated 14.09.2022, the State Government has partially allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated 14.06.2022, whereby the lease was cancelled by the authority and observed as under:-
"11. याचीकर्ता तथा प्राधिकरण की ओर से प्रस्तुत तर्कों एवं साक्ष्यों से यह निर्विवादित है कि जहां तक आवंटी को आवंटित भूखण्ड का प्रश्न है उस पर कब्जे को लेकर कोई विवाद नहीं है। यह भी निर्विवादित है कि आवंटित भूखण्ड के पूर्वी तरफ सम्पूर्ण भुजा की लम्बाई में आवंटी को की गयी लीज डीड में दर्शायी गयी स्थिति के विपरीत 45 मी० सड़क विद्यमान नहीं है तथा आबादी भूमि है, जिसका अधिग्रहण भी सम्भव नहीं है तथा वह पूर्णतः अतिक्रमित है। इस 45 मी० सड़क के पूर्ण होने की भविष्य में भी कोई कार्ययोजना प्राधिकरण के पास विद्यमान नहीं है। यह अवश्य है कि 45 मी० सड़क का निर्माण प्लाट के एक कोने तक वर्ष 2014 में पूर्ण किया जा चुका है।
12. जहां तक 24 मी० सड़क का प्रश्न है यह तथ्य निर्विवादित है कि उसका निर्माण कार्य 18.02.2020 को पूर्ण हुआ। परन्तु इसका सम्पूर्ण दोष आवंटी पर आरोपित किया जाना उचित नहीं है चूंकि उपलब्ध अभिलेखों के अनुसार उक्त एलाइनमेन्ट में 02.05.2013 से 07.01.2014 एक सोवर निर्माण के कारण 24 मी० मार्ग का कार्य बाधित रहा। यदि आवंटी द्वारा गिरायी गयी मिट्टी के कारण ही यह बाधित होता तो प्राधिकरण के स्तर से आवंटी को कोई नोटिस मिट्टी हटाने के लिए दी गयी होती। प्राधिकरण की स्वयं की आख्या में अथवा कथनों में भी इस आशय का उल्लेख नहीं किया गया है कि उनके द्वारा आवंटी को मिट्टी हटाने के लिए कोई नोटिस दी गयी। यदि सीवर का कार्य सम्भव था तो सम्पर्क मार्ग का निर्माण भी इस एलाइनमेन्ट में कराया जा सकता था। वर्ष 2014 के उपरान्त 2019 तक प्राधिकरण स्तर से 24 मी० मार्ग निर्माण के लिए कोई कार्यवाही नहीं की गयी।
13. मूल प्रश्न यह है कि आवंटी को प्राधिकरण की जीरो पीरियड पॉलिसी दिनांक 28.03.2016 यथा संशोधित 16.06.2017 का लाभ प्राप्त होना चाहिए अथवा नहीं। दिनांक 16.06.2017 के कार्यालय आदेश के निम्न प्रस्तर प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में रेलेवेन्ट हैं:-
(2) आवंटित भूमि पर अतिक्रमण आदि होने के कारण आवंटी / विकासकर्ता द्वारा आवंटित भूमि पर निर्माण/विकास कार्य किया जाना सम्भव नहीं हो पा रहा हो।
(3) न्यायालय के स्थगन आदेश रहने के कारण आवंटन /पट्टा प्रलेख/कब्जे की प्रकिया पर रोक हो अथवा निर्माण कार्य आगे नहीं किया जा सकता हो।
(5) यदि किसी भूखण्ड का कब्जा दिया जा चुका है तथा पट्टा प्रलेख का निष्पादन हो चुका हो परन्तु आवंटित भूखण्ड के लिए कोई पहुंच मार्ग नहीं है जिसके कारण आवंटित भूखण्ड पर निर्माण / विकास किया जाना सम्भव नहीं हो पा रहा हो।
नीति के अनुसार शून्य काल का लाभ दिये जाने पर शून्य काल अवधि में पड़ने वाली किश्तों को (प्रीमियम+साधारण ब्याज) शून्य काल की अन्तिम तिथि से आगे शिफ्ट कर दिया जाएगा तथा शून्य काल की अवधि का कोई दण्ड ब्याज नहीं लिया जाएगा।
14. प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में शून्य काल नीति के बिन्दु-3 के अनुसार मा० राष्ट्रीय हरित अधिकरण द्वारा पारित स्थगन आदेश के कारण शून्य काल का लाभ अन्य समकक्ष आवंटियों के अनुरूप पुनरीक्षणकर्ता को भी दिया जा चुका है। अतः इस आधार पर उसे कोई अन्य लाभ दिये जाने का कोई आधार नहीं है।
15. जहां तक शून्य काल सम्बन्धी नीति के बिन्दु-05 का प्रश्न है प्लाट के उत्तर तरफ 24 मी० का सम्पर्क मार्ग प्रारम्भ से ही उपलब्ध था, हांलाकि वह कच्चा मार्ग था तथा उसे वर्ष 2020 में ही पक्का बनाया जा सका। 45 मी० का मार्ग प्लाट के एक कोने तक वर्ष 2014 से ही उपलब्ध था परन्तु प्लाट की पूर्वी सम्पूर्ण भुजा में उसका निर्माण नहीं हो सका और न ही भविष्य में उसकी कोई सम्भावना है। हालांकि प्राधिकरण द्वारा यह स्टैण्ड लिया गया है कि 45 मी० सड़क के किनारे स्थित आवंटित्त भूखण्ड होने के आधार पर किसी भी आवंटी से अथवा आवंटित परिपेक्ष्य में कोई अतिरिक्त शुल्क नहीं लिया जाता अतः यह आवंटित भूखण्ड के मूल्यांकन पर कोई प्रभाव नहीं डालता, यह बिन्दु विचारणीय है कि इस वाणिज्यिक भूखण्ड पर स्वीकृत मानचित्र में एलीवेशन तथा सम्पूर्ण ले-आउट 45 मी० मार्ग की तरफ से मुख्य प्रवेश मानते हुए किया गया है तथा इसमें जिन व्यक्त्तियों द्वारा भी धनराशि निवेश की गयी है तथा अपने वाणिज्यिक प्रतिष्ठान स्थापित करने के लिए बुकिंग कराई गयी है वह इसका संज्ञान लेते हुए की गयी होगी तथा इस मार्ग के अवरुद्ध हो जाने से इस पूरी वाणिज्यिक प्रापर्टी का स्वरूप एवं नक्शा परिर्वतित किया जाना होगा। आवंटी द्वारा यह भूखण्ड तथा अपना मानचित्र इस 45 मी० मार्ग की उपलब्धता मानते हुए तथा प्राधिकरण के लीज डीड मे की गयी प्रामिस को सही मानते हुए किया गया है। अतः अब उसके उपलब्ध न होने पर इस परियोजना का स्वरूप तथा उसकी वायबिलिटी पूर्णतयः प्रभावित हो गयी है क्योंकि वह अब अन्तिम उपभोक्ता के लिए उतना आकर्षक नहीं रह गया है जितना दो तरफ से एक्सेस उपलब्ध होने पर होता। रेरा द्वारा भी अपने आदेश दिनांक 22.10.2020 में यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि यदि इस तरह की प्रामिस किसी अन्तिम उपभोक्ता से की गयी होती तो वह क्षतिपूर्ति प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी होता।
16. उपरोक्त सम्पूर्ण विवेचना से यह तो स्पष्ट है कि प्रकरण सीधे-सीधे शून्य काल पॉलिसी से तो आच्छादित नहीं होता है परन्तु 45 मी० मार्ग की एक्सेस प्राधिकरण द्वारा प्रामिस के अनुसार उपलब्ध न कराये जाने के कारण, स्वीकृत मानचित्र के अनुसार भवन निर्माण सम्भव नहीं था तथा यह बिन्दु लगातार विवादित रहा। अतः पुनरीक्षणकर्ता इस नीति का लाभ आंशिक रूप से पाने का हकदार है। वर्णित विशिष्ट परिस्थितियों में प्राधिकरण स्तर से पुनरीक्षणकर्ता के लम्बित देयकों में उसे दण्ड ब्याज की छूट प्राप्त होनी चाहिए। आवंटी राज्य सरकार द्वारा दिये गये निर्देशानुसार कोविड काल के लिए एक वर्ष की निःशुल्क समयवृद्धि का लाभ पाने का भी हकदार होगा। प्राधिकरण से यह भी अपेक्षा की जाती है कि वह आवंटित भूखण्ड की वर्तमान स्थित के अनुसार पुनरीक्षणकर्ता द्वारा पूर्व स्वीकृत मानचित्र के पुनरीक्षण की कार्यवाही भी पुनरीक्षित मानचित्र आवंटी द्वारा दाखिल किये जाने के उपरान्त नियमानुसार शीघ्र स्वीकृत करें, जिससे निर्माण कार्य आवंटी द्वारा यथाशीघ्र प्रारम्भ कराया जा सके। प्राधिकरण से यह अपेक्षा की जाती है कि वह संशोधित मांगपत्र आगामी एक माह के भीतर पुनरीक्षणकर्ता को उपलब्ध करा दें। पुनरीक्षण याचिका के लम्बित रहते भूखण्ड का आवंटन निरस्त किया जाना मामले को और उलझाता है तथा यह उचित नहीं है। अतः प्राधिकरण द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 14.06.2022 भी निरस्त किया जाता है। तद्नुसार पुनरीक्षण याचिका निस्तारित की जाती है।"
20. The aforesaid order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the State Government in revision was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No. 9348 of 2023 (M/S Sunshine Trade Tower Pvt Ltd vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others), claiming that the revisional order has not granted the benefit of Zero period in toto in favour of the petitioner herein. While entertaining the instant Writ Petition (C) No. 9348 of 2023 (M/S Sunshine Trade Tower Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others), this Court has passed the following interim order dated 10.04.2023.
"As an interim measure, the revised map submitted by the petitioner shall be proceeded for sanction without insisting for payment of time extension charges, the issue with regard to payment of time extension charges and the question of interest on payment of the premium amount shall be decided on the next date.
The petitioner would, however, not be entitled to create any fresh third party rights."
21. Pursuant to the aforesaid interim order dated 10.04.2023, the Noida Authority issued a demand notice dated 19.05.2023, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing the Writ Petition (C) No. 18244 of 2023 (M/S Sunshine Trade Tower Pvt Ltd vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others) and vide order dated 26.05.2023 this court disposed of the same with the following observations:-
At the outset, learned counsel for the Development Authority, on instructions, submits that the Development Authority is ready to withdraw the impugned notice dated 19.5.2023 and the revised lay out plan submitted by the petitioner shall be considered on merit.
In view thereof, nothing survives to be adjudicated in the present petition. The Development Authority to proceed as per the undertakings given before this Court.
The petition is disposed of.
22. Thereafter, the Noida Authority again raised various objections with regard to the issuance of revised sanction plan for the Plot No.5A, Block No.- A in Sector 94, Noida, U.P. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid notice dated 01.06.2023 the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition (C) No. 21276 of 2023 (M/S Sunshine Trade Tower Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others), which was connected with the Writ C No. 9348 of 2023 (M/s Sunshine Trade Tower Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others). Thereafter, the authority has issued another letter dated 23.02.2024, asking the petitioner to deposit the balance principal amount towards the premium without interest i.e. Rs.100,39,97,798/- as a precondition for sanction of the revised plan for the construction of the commercial building. The said demand notice dated 23.02.2024 is under challenge in Writ A No. 7223 of 2024 (M/s Sunshine Trader Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others).
Arguments on behalf of the petitioner
23. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as per the site plan annexed alongwith the petition, which is a part of the lease deed, it was the duty of the Noida Authority to provide the complete 45 metre wide road on the North side of the plot and 24 metre wide road on the East side of the plot. So far as the 45 metre wide road of the plot is concerned, it has not yet been made available to the petitioner as the same is already encroached upon by the individuals and the abadi situated on the said portion of the land. So far as the 24 metre wide road is concerned, admittedly it has been constructed only in the year, 2020, as has been categorically observed in the impugned order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the State Government in the revision filed by the petitioner herein. Since, the authority is still unable to provide the 45 metre wide road on the North side of the plot and it has compelled the petitioner herein to approach for sanction of the revised plan for construction of the building.
24. It was submitted that as per the Clause 5 of the Office Order dated 28.03.2016 issued by the Noida Authority, since no approach road was available to the plot in question and the petitioner was not in a position to construct the building as per the previously sanctioned plan due to the non-availability of the approach road as well as the non-availability of the 45 metre wide road on which the main entry of plot was sanctioned by the authority, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of Zero Period Policy. Till the revised plan is sanctioned and from the date of sanctioning of the plan, he would be liable to pay the balance premium amount without any time extension charges or penal interest thereon and as per the policy of the authority. The balance premium with simple interest from the date of the revised sanction plan will be paid by the petitioner with simple interest. The authority has categorically failed to provide the 45 metre wide road as promised in the lease deed as well as the initially sanctioned plan. Though, initially the petitioner has started the construction on the said plot, however, due to the order passed by the NGT till 19.08.2015, he could not raise the construction after the letter issued by the Superintendent of Police in the month of September, 2013. Thereafter, continuously the petitioner has raised an issue with regard to providing the approach road as well as the 45 metre wide road and 24 metre wide road on both sides of the plot, which has never been acceded by the authority and it has been categorically stated that the authority is incapable of providing 45 metre wide road, due to the encroachment upon the said land by the villagers.
25. It was submitted that the petitioner is entitled for benefit of Zero Period Policy as no construction has taken place due to the non-availability of the 45 metre wide road and no construction could have been undertaken again till the revised plan is sanctioned, making the main entry of the plot from the 24 metre wide road, which has now been constructed in the year, 2020. Before sanctioning the plan the authority cannot insist upon the payment of entire premium amount in one go. As per the lease agreement the payment of the premium is to be paid in 16 half yearly instalments. Once the revised sanctioned plan is issued by the authority to the petitioner after giving the benefit of the Zero period, the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the balance instalments as per the lease deed.
Arguments on behalf of the respondents
26. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Noida Authority submitted that the lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 11.01.2012 and the possession of the plot was also handed over to the petitioner on the same date. Thereupon, the petitioner has paid only the first instalment and he has defaulted in payment of the other instalments despite there being no impediment. As per the version of the petitioner, the petitioner has stopped the construction over the plot only after the letter issued in the month of September, 2013, by the Superintendent of Police, Noida, in pursuance of the order dated 17.09.2013 passed by the NGT. Therefore, by that time, two further instalments were due on 29.11.2012 as well as on 29.05.2013, which have been defaulted by the petitioner. The 45 metre road was available to the North-East corner of the plot in question. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that there was no approach road to the plot in question.
27. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the petitioner has already started the construction work on the plot in question and therefore, the approach road till North-Eastern corner of the plot in question was available since very beginning, when the possession was handed over to the petitioner and the petitioner was carrying on the construction work in full swing. It is only when the order passed by the NGT the construction work was stopped and till the construction work was stopped the petitioner has already defaulted in payment of the instalments.
28. He further submitted that after the leading Writ Petition (C) No. 9348 of 2023 was entertained by this Court and an interim order was passed on 10.04.2023, initially the authority has issued a demand notice dated 19.05.2023, which was withdrawn in pursuance of the order dated 26.05.2023, passed by this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 18244 of 2023 (M/S Sunshine Trade Tower Pvt Ltd vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others). Thereafter, a revised notice demanding only balance premium amount without interest was issued for sanctioning plan, while reserving its right to charge the time extension charges and the penal interest etc., subject to the decision in the writ petition. However, the petitioner has not shown his bona fide by depositing the balance premium amount without interest as demanded vide letter dated 23.02.2024. Therefore, in such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Since he has failed to show his bona fide and by the impugned order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the State Government, partial benefit of the Zero period, has already been accorded to the petitioner.
29. He argued that so far as the 24 metre wide road is concerned, the same could not be constructed due to the fault on the part of the petitioner himself as he has excavated the plot in question, due to which the road could not be constructed for sufficiently long period and could only be completed in the year, 2020. Due to the defaults in the payment of instalments the allotment was cancelled vide order dated 14.06.2022. However, the same has been set-aside by the impugned order passed by the State Government. If the petitioner is ready and willing to make the payment of at least the balance premium amount, which was due long back in accordance with the lease deed, then, the authority is ready and willing to consider the sanctioning of the revised plan for construction of the commercial building by the petitioner. The petitioner is admittedly a defaulter and hence he cannot claim the benefit of the zero period for his own default.
Analysis By Court
30. We have heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case. From the record it is apparently clear that the Noida Authority has executed the lease deed on 11.01.2012. The map was also sanctioned by the Noida Authority on 06.03.2012, giving the main entry of the plot from the 45 metre wide road and accordingly, the building plan was prepared. On the basis of the aforesaid promise of the Noida Authority, the petitioner has agreed to construct the building on the said plot. The conditions of the lease deed executed by which the plot was allotted to the petitioner has to be read in toto. On one hand, there was an obligation on behalf of the builder/promoter to start the construction and complete the same within the stipulated time and on the other hand, there was an obligation on behalf of Noida Authority to provide access road, which was 45 metre wide road on the North side of the plot and 24 metre wide road on the East side of the plot. However, 45 metre road has been encroached and the Noida Authority did not take any step to remove the encroachment and also to provide access to the plot. Further the other road of 24 metre was also not constructed due to which the petitioner could not properly proceed with the project.
31. It has been argued on behalf of the Noida Authority, that 24 metre road could not be constructed for sufficient long period of time due to fault of the petitioner as he has excavated the plot in question. This argument cannot be accepted as the petitioner had started the construction as per the terms of the lease deed and to start the construction the petitioner had to excavate the plot. It is not the case that the petitioner has excavated the road. Nothing has stopped the Noida Authority to complete the road to provide ingress and egress to the plot of the petitioner. The delay on the part of the Noida Authority to carry out the obligation cannot be fastened on the petitioner. Further the petitioner after being allotted the plot and lease deed being executed had legitimate expectation that the Noida Authority would provide 45 metre wide road on the North side of the plot and 24 metre road on the East side of the plot for ingress and egress to the project land. In absence of any ingress and egress no construction can be carried out. Neither the promoter would have been in a position to further sell/book the commercial space for which the building was to be constructed, as there was no proper approach road.
32. Under the English Law, the doctrine of legitimate expectation was initially developed in the context of public law as an analogy to the doctrine of promissionary estoppel found in private law. Thereafter the doctrine of legitimate expectancy was further developed in in the matter of R. vs. North and East Devon Health Authority 2001 QB 213 and R v Jockey Club Ex p RAM Racecourses Ltd, [1993] AC 380 (HL) in which it was held that the scope of the doctrine of legitimate expectation is wider than promissory estoppel because it not only takes into consideration a promise made by a public body but also official practice, as well.
33. The doctrine of legitimate expectation has been adopted in India in more expansive manner. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. (1979) 2 SCC 409 has given an expansive interpretation to the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
34. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Food Corporation of India vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries reported in (1993) 1 SCC 71 has held as under:-
"7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law: A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This imposes the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is 'fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision making process in all State actions. To satisfy this requirement of non-arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely to be affected by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but provides for control of its exercise by judicial review.
8. The mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in such a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the rule of law. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decision-making process. Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is a question of fact in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant's perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. A bona fide decision of the public authority reached in this manner would satisfy the requirement of non-arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny. The doctrine of legitimate expectation gets assimilated in the rule of law and operates in our legal system in this manner and to this extent."
35. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of the State of Jharkhand and ors vs. Brahmputra Mettalics Ltd. And ors reported in (2023) 10 SCC 634 has held that doctrine of legitimate expectation will be applicable to the government contracts.
36. Hence, the expectation of the petitioner, that the Noida Authority would complete their part of obligation, cannot be said to be unfounded, and the same is also legitimate. The Noida Authority cannot penalise the petitioner for their own fault.
37. From the record, it clearly transpires that a notice dated 8th September, 2013 was sent by the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Gautam Buddh Nagar to the petitioner for stopping the construction work in terms of the order dated 17.09.2013 passed by Hon'ble National Green Tribunal in Original Application No.158/2013 (Amit Kumar vs. Union of India & ors) regarding ongoing dispute of preservation of 'Okhla Bird Sanctuary' and in compliance of the said notice, the petitioner had stopped the construction. Finally, the dispute was put to rest by the Central Government vide notification dated 19.08.2015, whereby the Central Government appointed '19.08.2015' as the date from which no project shall be allowed to raise construction over the plot of land, falling within one hundred meter from the eastern, western and southern boundary and up to 1.27 kilometres from the northern boundary of the 'New Okhla Bird Sanctuary' as an Eco-sensitive Zone from ecological and environmental point of view.
38. We find that 'Zero period' policy under the Act, 1976 and other similar enactment relating to Urban and Industrial Development is a Policy introduced by the State Government to overcome the numerous problems created with stalled real estate projects in the State. Under the Policy, the State Government has decided to waive off penal interest and other dues on builders/buyers for the period during which their projects were stalled due to litigation over land acquisition issues, injunction by the competent court or even the encroachment over the allotted plots. In layman terms, during a zero period no interest or penal interest is levied on land allotment charges or other charges and the period is treated as a moratorium.
39. We find that Noida and Greater Noida, which is adjoining the National Capital Region, Delhi, constitute a very crucial part of the real estate market of Uttar Pradesh. The said area is not only prominent place for industrialisation of the State but also cater the need of homes to lacs of individuals and also provide huge employment opportunities and also absorb a large number of migrants. The increased industrialisation and influx of immigrants has also led to the numerous real estate projects in both the cities. The State Government had issued the policy of Zero period vide Government Order dated 05.12.2019, the conditions enumerated therein for the grant of benefit of Zero Period are reproduced as under:-
"(i) If for some reason, the authority is unable to deliver possession to the allottee or developer.
(ii) The authority is unable to deliver possession to the allottee/developer as the same could disturb the peace and tranquillity of the area or there is an encroachment as a result of which development is unable to proceed.
(iii) Execution of allotment / lease / delivery of possession is unable to take place in view of pending interim order of a court.
(iv) Lease deed is unable to be executed on account of G.O or a decision of the Board.
(v) If the authority has delivered possession to the allottee and the lease deed executed but the allottee in unable to access the plot as a result of which development is impossible to commence, the allottee is entitled to the benefit of zero period upto the date on which alternate access is provided."
(Emphasis supplied)
40. Now coming to the facts of the present case, undisputedly the land was allotted in the year 2011 and the lease was also executed on 11.1.2012. The details have already been enumerated above, wherein it is writ large that on account of non-availability of proper ingress or egress the entire project was at halt. Even the Noida Authority had also issued the office order, which provided for declaration of 'Zero Period', for the said period in which the project could not commence on the said grounds. The said policy also provided that even the allotted land is affected due to encroachment resulting in hindrance in raising construction; construction could not be raised on account of stay order by any competent Court or in the event there is no access road to the allotted plot, the allottees shall be entitled for grant of Zero period. Upon grant of Zero period, the premium instalments alongwith interest falling in the Zero period are shifted to the date the Zero period ends and the penal interest stands waived.
Conclusion
41. It is evident that in the instant matter there was an encroachment on the road, as a result of which the development was unable to proceed. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner falls under the 'Zero Period' policy of Noida for grant of 'Zero Period' and the said benefit of 'Zero Period' cannot be denied to the petitioner. We therefore direct the Noida Authority to accord benefit of 'Zero Period' to the petitioners in accordance with the Office Order dated 28.06.2016.
42. Accordingly, we issue the following directions:-
(i) The Noida Authority shall issue fresh calculation granting benefit of 'Zero Period' and raise the demand within two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
(ii) The petitioner shall pay the balance amount in terms of the demand in next 08 weeks from the date of receipt of demand so raised.
(iii) Thereafter, the Noida Authority shall approve the revised plan in accordance with law, subject to compliance of other formalities by the petitioners, within next 04 weeks.
43. It is further observed that in case there is any default by the petitioners in following the above directions, the Noida Authority will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The relief qua 'Zero Period' has been considered by this Court on various factors peculiar to the instant cases. The benefit of 'Zero Period' accorded to the petitioners shall not be treated as a precedent. The question of law qua the benefit of 'Zero Period' is left open to be considered in appropriate proceeding/ case. Accordingly, the impugned orders are modified to the above extent.
44. All the writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 19.07.2024
Shubham Arya
(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (M.C. Tripathi,J.)