Quashed

Jpc Infra Private Limited v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC31 Oct 2022WRIC/27183/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order cancelling its lease of an industrial plot for commercial use and directing possession handover. The High Court quashed the cancellation order, noting the Authority had received a mixed-use application but had not levied dues, and directed the Authority to decide the application within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 29.6.2022 was quashed; the Authority was directed to decide the petitioner's mixed-use application within three weeks.

Jpc Infra Private Limited Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27183 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Jpc Infra Private Limited Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akshat Sinha,Sanyukta Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh

¶4

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

¶5

Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh for respondents 2 and 3.

¶6

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

¶7

The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 29.6.2022 passed by respondent no.3 cancelling the lease of a industrial plot bearing No. H-003, Sector 63, Noida on ground of use of industrial plot for commercial purposes with further direction to the petitioner to hand-over physical possession of plot to the Authority, failing which, the same will be obtained by taking appropriate measures. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.2 to decide its application dated 30.10.2018 for mixed-use of the demised land.

¶8

The principal submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice dated 21.12.2020, by which the respondentAuthority claims to have directed the petitioner to close down the commercial activity was never served upon the petitioner. In this regard, specific assertion has been made in paragraph 17 of the writ petition.

¶9

The other submissions were noted in our previous order dated 23.9.2022, which is as follows:

¶10

"The submission is that the impugned order has been passed in ignorance of the fact that the petitioner company had applied for change of user of 1500 sq. feet of the demised premises for commercial use on 31.10.2018 and Regulation 24.8 (17) permits mixed user to an extent of 25% of permissible F.A.R. on ground floor of industrial plots.

¶11

Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Noida Authority seeks time to obtain instructions.

¶12

As prayed, put up as fresh on 18.10.2022.

¶13

In the meantime, no coercive action shall be taken in pursuance of the impugned order."

¶14

Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Noida-Authority is in receipt of instructions. He does not dispute that the application dated 30.10.2018 was received by the Authority by e-mail. He states that the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs. 5,07,43,243.00/- plus other taxes for mixeduse of the demised land. He further states that a demand notice in this behalf will be issued to the petitioner. He also states that the Authority will withdraw the impugned order and will pass a fresh order considering the request of the petitioner for mixeduse of the demised land in terms of its policy.

¶15

Having regard to the above stand of the respondent-Authority, we hereby quash the impugned order dated 29.6.2022 and direct the respondent-Authority to pass appropriate order on the application of the petitioner dated 30.10.2018 within a period of three weeks from today.

¶16

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶17

Order Date: - 31.10.2022 CS/-

¶18

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

¶19

Digitally signed by CHANDAN SINGH Date: 2022.11.01 10:32:28 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jpc Infra Private Limited v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jpc Infra Private Limited v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Jahan Ara Begum and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Regional Manager U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs M/S Krishna Brothers through Its Proprietor Shri Krishna Jaiswal

Vijay Kumar Sahu Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Prashant Kumar (P.K.) Ghosh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Limited Ramgarh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Gupta Advertiser Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others