Quashed

M/S Devsai Construction Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Sept 2022WRIC/24579/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order rejecting a petitioners re-validation application for a building plan. The Court directed the respondent authority to decide the application on merits within four weeks, noting that existing regulations did not bar re-validation and the authority must comply with prior directions to record speaking orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 8.11.2021 is quashed; directive to respondent no.2 to decide re-validation application on merit within four weeks.

M/S Devsai Construction Private Limited Vs State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24579 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Devsai Construction Private Limited Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Prateek Rai,Devid Kumar Singh,Varad Nath Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjali Upadhya

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶5

Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Mrs. Anjali Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2-Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority.

¶6

With the consent of parties, the petition is being disposed of finally without inviting formal counter affidavit.

¶7

The case of the petitioner is that it was granted lease of a piece of land by respondent no.2 by registered lease deed dated 6.2.2014. The building plan was sanctioned on 30.6.2015 and it was valid for five years. Due to Covid-19 pandemic, the building could not be constructed within the prescribed period. The petitioner applied for re-validation of building plan by moving an application on 19.3.2020 alongwith copy of a challan dated 18.6.2020 evidencing deposit of various charges in sum of Rs. 6,09,163/. Respondent no.2 kept the matter pending compelling the petitioner to approach this Court by way of Writ-C No. 13021 of 2021 with the grievance that re-validation application was not being decided. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 24.6.2021 requiring respondent no.2 to pass a speaking order on the application of the petitioner dated 19.3.2020 within eight weeks. Thereafter, in compliance of order of this Court, respondent no.2 passed an order dated 8.11.2021 seeking to reject the re-validation application of the petitioner. The order mentions that the petitioner had not submitted ‘no dues certificate’. It also mentions that a public notice was issued, whereby the developers were required to get their pending applications decided by 30.6.2021 after

¶8

¶9

completing the formalities and whereafter, applications by offline mode will not be entertained and all pending applications will stand automatically rejected. The petitioner company was informed about automatic rejection of its application by letter dated 26.10.2021. The order also records that sum of Rs.3,59,07,758/ is due upto 22.10.2021 towards premium/additional premium and Rs. 40,07,990/ as annual lease rent. The order also mentions that as per office order dated 28.2.2020, no builder will be granted any relaxation in deposit of dues while seeking revalidation of building plan. The petitioner has accordingly been given liberty to apply online.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was issued no dues certificate on 31.3.2022 by respondent no.2. It is also urged that the impugned order seeks to reject the application primarily on the ground that the petitioner had not removed the defects and that in view of new policy, offline applications are not entertainable any more. It is urged that by taking such view, the respondents have failed to comply with the direction issued by this Court on 24.6.2021 in the previous writ petition directing the respondents to pass speaking order on the revalidation application.

¶11

It is further submitted that on 26.7.2022, the respondents themselves issued office order notifying that until development of online portal for entertaining such application, the authority will continue to entertain applications by offline mode.

¶12

On 29.8.2022, Mrs. Anjali Upadhyay learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 sought time to obtain instructions in the matter. She submits that the application for re-validation has been rejected in view of Regulation 13.4 of the Building Regulation framed by respondent no.2. However, we find that the said Regulation is not applicable in respect of

¶13

¶14

an application filed for re-validation of building plan, but to the original application submitted for sanction of building plan.

¶15

Mrs. Anjali Upadhyay very fairly states that respondent no.2 will pass speaking order on the re-validation application in compliance of the earlier order of this Court dated 24.6.2021.

¶16

Accordingly, we quash the impugned order dated 8.11.2021 and dispose of the instant petition with direction to respondent no.2 to decide the re-validation application on merit within four weeks from today.

¶17

The petition stands disposed of accordingly .

¶18

Order Date :- 29.9.2022 sfa/

¶19

(Jayant Banerji, J) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J)

¶20

Digitally signed by SYED FAHEEM AHMAD Date: 2022.09.30 17:33:20 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Devsai Construction Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Devsai Construction Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Mahajan Vs the State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others

Prakash Ahuja Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akanksha Jain Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Anuradha Singh Vs State of u.p. Through Principal Secretary and 2 others

Jyotishna Katiyar Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Bhagvan Singh Kushwaha Alias Bhagvan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others