Allowed

M/S I.T.Infrastructure Park Pvt. Ltd.Thru . Authorized Representative Ashish Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Infrastructure and Industrial Development Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2025WRIC/11200/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Extension of time for completion of IT/ITES project; Noida Authority; automatic cancellation of lease under first proviso clauses (d)/(e) to Section 7, U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 (2022 Amendment) conditional on three-month notice before 31.12.2022; second proviso — State Government power to extend cancellation/vesting date for promotion of investment and employment generation; unif

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; the Noida authority's order dated 06.08.2024 and the State Government's revisional order dated 30.10.2025 set aside; petitioner held entitled to extension of time per the Noida

M/S I.T.Infrastructure Park Pvt. Ltd.Thru . Authorized Representative Ashish Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Infrastructure and Industrial Development Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 11200 of 2025

¶3

M/S I.T.Infrastructure Park Pvt. Ltd.Thru . Authorized Representative Ashish Kumar Pandey

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Infrastructure And Industrial Development Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pranshu Agrawal, Mohd. Yasir Abbasi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Waseeq Uddin Ahmed

¶7

Court No. - 17

¶8

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶9

Heard Sri S. C. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Yasir Abbasi, Sri Ajay Tyagi and Mr. Dinkar Tiwari Advocates, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Devendra Mohan Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. and Sri Waseeq Uddin Ahmed, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3-New Okhla Industrial Development Authority.

¶10

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged validity of an order dated 06.08.2024 passed by Noida authority declining the petitioner' s request for extension of time on payment of charges. The petitioner had challenged the aforesaid order before the State Government by filing a revision which has been dismissed by means of an order dated 30.10.2025 and the revisional order has also been assailed by the petitioner.

¶11

On 22.03.2024, the petitioner had submitted a detailed

¶12

WRIC No. 11200 of 2025

¶13

¶14

representation to the Chief Executive Officer of Noida Authority requesting that the petitioner may be allowed extension of 24 months with effect from 17.02.2025 for completion of the project. The petitioner enclosed with the representation a copy of the order dated 15.02.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1674/2020 wherein it is mentioned that the dues of Noida have been cleared and extension of five years w.e.f. 18.02.2020 shall be available to I.T. Infrastructure Park Pvt. Ltd. (the petitioner).

¶15

This representation of the petitioner was rejected by means of an order dated 06.08.2024 wherein it is mentioned that a lease deed in respect of the plot in question was executed on 14.01.2008 and a sub-lease in favour of the petitioner was executed on 21.10.2009. In view of the office order dated 16.01.2024 issued by the authority in furtherance of a government order dated 20.12.2023, a period of more than eight years had elapsed on 28.07.2020 since execution of the sub-lease deed. The order states that the matter is covered by the notification dated 03.06.2022 issued by the State Government in view whereof, as per the office order dated 16.01.2024, period till 31.12.2024 could only be granted for functionality. In the present case, in compliance of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, time extension till 17.02.2025 has already been granted to the allottee company. In view of the aforesaid facts the petitioner’s request for extension of time beyond 17.02.2025 was turned down.

¶16

The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing a revision under Section 41(3) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, which has been dismissed by means of the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the State Government. The revisional order states that the original allotment with respect to the plot in question was made in favour of the petitioner vide sub-lease dated 21.10.2009. As per an amendment made to Section 7 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act in the year 2022, upon failure to complete

¶17

WRIC No. 11200 of 2025

¶18

¶19

construction of the project by 31.12.2024, the lease deed would be presumed to have been cancelled automatically and the plot in question would revert to Noida authority. As the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given time to the revisionist till 18.02.2025 and the project was not completed within the deadline specified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Noida authority has declined to grant any further time extension to the petitioner.

¶20

The revisional order takes note of the submission advanced by the petitioner that the new unified policy promulgated on 16.05.2025 provides for time extension on payment of charges. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as per the proviso appended to Section 7 of the Act, the State Government may permit extension of time in the interest of investment and employment. The revisional order records the contention of the Noida authority that the provision for extension of time made in the unified policy would apply only to those allottees who have failed to complete their projects within 3 or 5 years’ time as indicated in the lease deed and this would not apply to the petitioner who could not complete project in 16 years. For such kind of allottees, Section 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 2022 (as amended) would apply, unless the State Government permits additional time.

¶21

The revisional authority has dismissed the revision by merely stating that “I find merit in the argument of the respondent-authority. Therefore, the revision is dismissed.”

¶22

Assailing validity of the aforesaid orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recorded in the order dated 15.02.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No. 1674/2020 that the petitioner had cleared the dues of Noida and benefit of time extension for 5 years w.e.f. 18.02.2020 shall be available to it. The unified policy provides that for IT/ITES plots of size 20,000 sq. mtr. and above, in exceptional circumstances, extension may be

¶23

WRIC No. 11200 of 2025

¶24

¶25

granted by the authority on submission of extension request letter by the allottee/ lessee and after payment of prescribed fees/ charges, which shall be as follows:-

¶26

For 1st year : 4% of premium of plot

¶27

For 2nd year: 6% of premium of plot

¶28

A note appended to the aforesaid provision states that maximum extension for obtaining occupancy of project given to allottee shall be up to 7 years from the date of execution of lease deed for plots 20,000 sq. mtr. and above. All permissions of extension and penalties shall be calculated from the date of execution of lease deed/possession.

¶29

The learned counsel for the respondent authority has submitted that as the period of 7 years since execution of the deed, mentioned in the unified policy, stands expired, the petitioner’s lease deed stands cancelled automatically in view of the provisions contained in the Proviso appended to the amended Section 7 of the Act.

¶30

Section 7 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, as amended by the U.P. Industrial Area Development (Amendment) Act, 2022, provides as follows: -

¶31

“7. Power to the Authority in respect of transfer of land. -

¶32

The Authority may sell, lease or otherwise transfer whether by auction, allotment or otherwise, any land or building belonging to the Authority in the industrial development area on such terms and conditions as it may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, think fit to impose:

¶33

Provided that,-

¶34

(a) where any land has been allotted on lease before 28.07.2020 for setting up of an industrial unit and/or Information Technology/ Information Technology Enabled

¶35

WRIC No. 11200 of 2025

¶36

¶37

Services unit(IT/ITES); and

¶38

(b) the land has not been utilized (functional/minimum completion) by 28.07.2020 as per the norms laid down by the Authority; and

¶39

(c) a period of eight years from the date of execution of lease deed of the period fixed for such utilization as per the terms and conditions of allotment, whichever is longer has lapsed by 28.07.2020; and.

¶40

(d) a notice has been given by the Authority to such allottee atleast three months prior to 31.12.2022 to utilize the said land by 31.12.2022 for the purpose for which it was allotted and apprising him of the consequences as mentioned hereafter of the failure to do so; and

¶41

(e) the allottee does not utilize the land by 31.12.2022 then the allotment and lease deed will stand automatically cancelled and allotted land will vest with the Authority on 31.12.2022

¶42

Provided further that the State Government may, by a general or special order, extend the date of such cancellation and vesting as mentioned in the above proviso, in the interest of promotion of investment and employment generation.

¶43

Explanation-1:-The aforesaid amendment does not entitle any allottee/unit to claim a minimum completion period of eight years. The period fixed for such utilization shall continue to be governed by the terms and conditions of allotment and the policy of the concerned Authority, including the applicability of extension of time and other interests and charges.

¶44

Explanntion-2:- The refund of money deposited by the allottee on such cancellation of allotment and lease deed, and vesting of land in Authority shall be as per the policy of the concerned Authority.”

¶45

WRIC No. 11200 of 2025

¶46

¶47

A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it manifest that for automatic cancellation of the lease deed, it is mandatory that a notice has been given by the authority to the allottee at least three months prior to 31.12.2022, to utilize the land by 31.12.2022 and apprising him of the consequences of the failure to do so. Admittedly, no such notice has been given by the authority to the petitioner. When no notice has been given to the petitioner as per clause D of the first proviso appended to Section 7, there is no occasion for automatic cancellation of the lease deed of the petitioner.

¶48

The second proviso appended to Section 7 provides that the State Government may extend the date of cancellation and vesting in the interest of promotion of investments and employment generation, but the petitioner’s request for extension of time has been turned down without consideration of the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶49

The office memorandum dated 16.05.2025 referred to in the impugned order states that in matters in which the maximum limit of time extension has expired or is about to expire within next one year, time extension of one year to allottees having plots up to 20,000 sq. mtr. and of two years to allottees having plots having area exceeding 20,000 sq. mtr., would be granted subject to payment of charges.

¶50

The office order dated 16.05.2025 is unequivocal and unambiguous in declaring that in cases of ‘ all allottees ’ of plots exceeding 20,000 sq. mtr. area regarding whom the maximum time extension limit has been expired or is about to expire within next one year, would be entitled to time extension of two years subject to payment of 4% amount for first year and 6% for second year.

¶51

The petitioner is certainly included within ‘ all allottees ’ regarding whom the maximum time extension has expired/is about to expire within one year. Therefore, the petitioner' s

¶52

WRIC No. 11200 of 2025

¶53

¶54

request for extension of time is covered by the office order dated 16.05.2025 issued by the Noida authority.

¶55

The Noida authority has committed an illegality in rejecting the petitioner’s request for extension of time by the impugned order dated 06.08.2024 ignoring the aforesaid mandatory provisions contained in the office order dated 16.05.2025. The revisional authority has also committed a patent error in rejecting the revision by merely recording that “I find merit in the argument of the respondent authority. Therefore, the revision is dismissed.”, without referring to the office order dated 16.05.2025, which vitiates the order of the revisional authority.

¶56

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the Noida authority and the order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the revisional authority are set aside. It is held that the petitioner is entitled to extension of time as per the provisions contained in the office order dated 16.05.2025 issued by the Noida authority.

¶57

The authority shall communicate the amount of dues payable by the petitioner for extension of time, within a period of one week from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner would deposit extension charges within a period of one week from the date of communication of the order so passed by the Noida authoritiy.

¶58

The parties will bear their respective costs of litigation.

¶59

December 2, 2025 Pradeep-Anurag/-

¶60

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶61

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S I.T.Infrastructure Park Pvt. Ltd.Thru . Authorized Representative Ashish Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Infrastructure and Industrial Development Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S I.T.Infrastructure Park Pvt. Ltd.Thru . Authorized Representative Ashish Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Infrastructure and Industrial Development Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

P.W.D. Cooperative Housing Society Limited Kanpur Nagar Thru. Secy. and Another vs State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Lko. Thru. President and 5 Others

Siraj Ahmad vs Civil Judge (Senior Division) Distt. Ambedkar Nagar and 5 Others

Smt. Anita Yadav Vs District Judge/ Commercial Judge, Commercial Court, Lucknow and 2 Others

Vivian Mishra (Minor) Thru. Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Shweta Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Junaid Ahmed vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 3 Others

Pno NO.942491179,SUB Inspector Arshad Nadeem vs State Public Service Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lko. and 2 Others