Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. M/s Logix Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd, lead member of the consortium, wrote to the NOIDA Authority on 28.12.2011 seeking permission for the sub-division of plot in Sector 150 into two parts in terms of the brochure of the scheme. The request was accepted by the Noida Authority on 17.01.2012 and the plot was divided into two parts. One plot being SC-1/A admeasuring 2,69,430 square meters was allotted to M/s Logix Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd and the other Plot No.SC-1/B admeasuring 2,78,761.8431 square meters was retained by M/s Logix Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd.

15. The development authority vide letter dated 11.02.2022 informed that the application of the petitioner for sub-division of the plot cannot be considered because of the resolution of the 201st Board Meeting of Noida held on 18.01.2021, in respect of sports city project in Sectors 78, 79, 101, 150 & 152. It was informed that due to non-development of sports facility, the Board had taken a decision to hold back any decision in respect of Building Plans, Sub-Division, correction/revalidation/review renewal of the maps & occupancy certificate till the next meeting. Thereafter, vide subsequent decision of the Board, the matter has been referred to the State Government for a decision on the above aspect.

37. The sub-division of the plot was not done on accord of the respondent authority but was done on the request made by the relevant member/lead member of the Consortium. This was a permissible exercise under the brochure inasmuch as the sub-division was granted in favour of Subsidiary Company and not in favour of a third party. Accordingly, sub-division was permitted and sub lease deed was executed in favour of the relevant member/lead member of the Consortium.

38. The subsidiary company is bound not only by its sub-lease but is also bound by the terms of the original lease and, therefore, it is under the same obligation as the Consortium and becomes a part of the chain to develop Sports City Project in the same proportion as has been fixed in the brochure, allotment letter and the principal lease deed.

56. In the instant case, the consortium was allotted the sports city project. However, instead of developing the sports city project they have chosen to divide the entire sports city into smaller plots and then sold it off to various other companies. The original allottees, who have only paid 10% of the total allotment amount and thereafter, chose to pay pittance and did not pay any further dues, taking advantage of the increase of the value of land over a period of time, has sold it off to the other builders at a very high premium. The fraud mechanism was put into motion by transferring the share and changing the Directors and shareholding of the subsidiary companies, though this was not the object of the scheme to allow sub-division of the plots and to sell it off to other entities, who were not even eligible to apply for the sports city. Hence, it transpires that the original allotee right from the inception had no intention of developing the project and was only interested in making money by selling the companies incorporated by the promoters.