Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10). Now vide order dated 19.06.2023, Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred as 'UPRERA') issued the notice while directing the M/s Ansal Properties not to transfer any property unless a particular amount is deposited to UPRERA and therefore, the further compliance is said to be stopped as per the order of UPRERA.

11). Counsel appearing for applicant contended that in fact by way of a MoU between the M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. and the opposite party no. 2 an amount of Rs. ₹42,56,97,041 was paid till 2014, which is an admitted fact, but thereafter the terms and condition as per the MoUs between the parties could not be honoured timely because of the reasons, which are not in the approach of the applicants and thereafter the First Information Report was lodged by the opposite party no. 2, under misconception that the present applicants have committed cheat and fraud with him. He submits that once the First Information Report was lodged, the applicants tried to make understand the opposite party no. 2 that since the Hi-Tech Township area, wherein the government land, canals, chakroads etc. could not be exchanged as per the policy of 2003 to 2010, which is the part of the compliance of the State Government and as soon as the same would be settled, the MoU entered in between the parties shall be followed and therefore, the parties entered into between the agreement on 28.12.2019 and further an addendum dated 14.07.2022 to the settlement deed dated 28.12.2019 was also signed by the parties wherein the eight properties were categorized, in dispute, which are mentioned in paragraph 30 of the supplementary affidavit dated 18.09.2023 filed on behalf of the applicants. He added that properties are marked as A, B, C. D, E, F, G and H, wherein the property number A, B, C and D is transferred to the opposite party no. 2 vide registered sale deeds dated 16 July 2022, 18 July 2022, 19 July 2022 and 27 April 2023, respectively and the fifth property that is 'E', allotment letter is issued, but the registered sale deed could not be executed due to non-availability of opposite party no. 2 and so far as property number F to H are concerned, the allotment number and transfer of title were issued in favour of the opposite party no. 2, but unfortunately, the UPRERA has issued a notice in pursuant to it's meeting dated 19.06.2023 and therefore, the rest of the properties are waiting for its transfer and thus, there is no fault on the part of the applicants.

13). Further submission is that in fact, the main issue is regarding non-execution of the sale deed as well as not handing over the possession of certain properties to the opposite party no. 2, but there is express legal bar by virtue of notice issued in a meeting dated 19.06.2023 of UPRERA, on the properties which are mentioned in the addendum of settlement agreement and therefore, there are efficacious remedy to the opposite party no. 2 to approach UPRERA, Civil Court or any other forum of a civil competence. He also added that properties which are under dispute between the parties mentioned in paragraph 30 of the supplementary affidavit, are the admitted fact between the parties as no rebuttal has been filed by the opposite party no. 2.

15). Adding his arguments he submits that the applicants are innocent and law abiding citizens and have not committed any offence and the story which is narrated in the First Information Report, is false and concocted.

16). Concluding his argument, he has submitted that in fact, the circumstances which are not under the control of the applicants, are the reasons of the dispute, as there was a delay on the part of the State Government to hand over the property in question to the applicants and there was certain dispute regarding the government land including the chakroads, canals etc. which are still to be exchanged as per the terms and conditions given in the Hi-Tech Township Policy promulgated time to time. He submits that from the first day, the applicants are ready to transfer the plots, land etc. as per the MoU to the opposite party no. 2 and it is apparent from the paragraph 30 of the supplementary affidavit that applicants have transferred four properties vide the registered sale deed in favour of the opposite party no. 2, out of eight disputed properties, for which the transfer of title and settlement has also been issued and the applicants undertake with full responsibility that as soon the UPRERA will lift the ban, the rest of the properties immediately shall be transferred to the opposite party no. 2. Further the transfer of the properties which was done in favour of the opposite party no. 2, are not disputed and therefore, looking to the whole scenario, no offence is committed as is alleged in the First Information Report.

32). From perusal of the addendum settlement agreement as well as the notice issued by the UPRERA indicates that the dispute is relating to the plots/houses between the parties for which time and again they agreed to amicably settle the issue and the settlement agreement was also honoured to some extent, uptil the UPRERA imposed the ban. It has also been admitted and undertaken by the applicants that they are still ready to transfer the rest of the property in favour of the opposite party no. 2 or her company and they are trying to get the ban lifted by the UPRERA.