Allahabad High Court Grants Relief To Allottee
The Allahabad Excessive Court docket has granted reduction to an allottee of a plot of land by quashing the impugned orders cancelling his allotment after discovering fault on the a part of the event authority in not delivering bodily possession of the plot and never taking closing determination on the appliance for grant of permission for development.
The Petitioner had approached the Excessive Court docket searching for quashing of the orders of the Extra Chief Secretary, Industrial Growth Division, Authorities of U.P., Lucknow and the Chief Government Officer, Higher Noida Industrial Growth Authority, cancelling the allotment of the Petitioner.
The Single Bench of Justice Prakash Padia mentioned, “Thus the event authority itself had faulted in not delivering the bodily possession of the plot as per the modified structure plan, by not executing the correction/give up deed and never taking closing determination on the utility for grant of permission for development. The failure has been on a part of the event authority for which the petitioner can’t be penalized.”
Advocate Sudhanshu Kumar represented the Petitioner whereas Advocate Anjali Upadhya represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
A gaggle of firms, together with the petitioner’s firm, was allotted a bunch housing Plot having an space of 64,000 sq. meters. A plot was allotted to the petitioner. A lease deed in pursuance of the aforesaid letter of allotment was executed between the Higher Noida Industrial Growth Authority (improvement authority) and the petitioner. The entire premium payable by the petitioner was calculated at Rs 53,24,00,000. 20% of the aforesaid quantity was paid by the petitioner earlier than execution of the lease deed. It was the petitioner’s case that the bodily possession of the aforesaid plot was not handed over to him. Furthermore, by the impugned orders, the allotment of the petitioner was cancelled. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Excessive Court docket.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the info of the case, the Bench observed that the possession of the modified web site plan was not handed over to the petitioner. No correction/supplementary deed had been executed by the improvement authority following the amended/corrected structure plan.
“Thus, it’s established that the respondent-development authority has failed to speak the change in structure plan to the petitioner and delivered the precise bodily possession as per the modified structure plan. The event authority has did not execute the correction/ supplementary deed in favour of the petitioner, as per the modified structure plan, whereas in comparable circumstances, the correction deed has been executed by the event authority in favour of M/s Shirja Actual Property Options Pvt. Ltd., one other member of the identical consortium”, it mentioned.
It was additional famous by the Bench that no precise bodily possession was handed over to the petitioner. As per the modified web site plan, no correction/surrendered deed had been executed by the event authority. “Because the bodily possession of the plot, as per the amended web site plan has not been handed over and in absence of correction/give up deed executed between the events making legal responsibility upon the petitioner to make fee of premium is opposite to the phrases and circumstances of the lease deed and thus, can’t be a floor for cancellation of the allotment”, it mentioned.
As per the Bench, in view of the inaction on half of the event authority in deciding the appliance for grant of permission for development, the petitioner couldn’t float the development plan and couldn’t accumulate the funds from the market to be paid to the improvement authority.
Thus, permitting the petition, the Bench put aside the impugned orders.
Trigger Title: M/S Kinetic Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and One other (Impartial Quotation: 2025:AHC:96738)
Look
Petitioner: Advocates Sudhanshu Kumar, Swapnil Kumar
Respondent: Advocate Anjali Upadhya, C.S.C., Advocate Shivam Yadav
