M/S S.D.S. Infracon Pvt. Ltd. vs State of U.P. and Another

Heard Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Rahul Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Aditya Bhushan Singhal and Sri Abhay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA).

¶11

The instant writ petition is preferred inter alia for the following relief:-

¶12

"I. A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to take a decision in respect to the representation of the petitioner dated 25.03.2025 / 02.06.2025 Annexure No.27 & 28 of this writ petition) for grant of Zero Period in terms of Point No. of Legacy Stalled Projects Policy dated 21.12.2023 (Annexure No.25 of this writ petition).

¶13

II. A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay the interest on the delayed additional farmer compensation payment of installments only after 07.03.2024, and further direct the Respondent to recalculate the interest liability accordingly, and pass such other order(s) as deemed fit in the interest of justice,

¶14

III. A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 that the period till which the external development work is being completed by the Respondent as per clause 21 of the Lease Deed, the Petitioner/the allottee(s)/sub-lessees/lessee may be granted with a

¶15

WRIC No. 39715 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

time extension for project implementation and raising construction of House/Plot as provided for in clause 20 of the Lease Deed without imposing any penalty/ fee/charges upon the Petitioner/ allottee(s)/sub lessees/lessee."

¶18

Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Advocate vehemently submitted that till date the claim of the petitioner had not been considered by the respondent, even though under the facts and circumstances the petitioner company is entitled for grant of 'Zero Period' in terms of Point No. of Legacy Stall Projects Policy dated 21.12.2023. Various representations have been made but till date the same have not been decided.

¶19

Sri Rahul Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel has resisted the relief on the premise that as the Board of YEIDA has already taken a decision qua Item No. 84/18 dated 18.06.2025, wherein it is observed that as per the Government Order it has been resolved that any proceedings against the Authority are to be withdrawn before any application can be processed under the Stalled Projects Policy dated 21.12.2023. In this backdrop, he placed reliance upon paragraph 52 of the writ petition, wherein it is stated that the petitioner has already moved a revision under Section 41(3) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (in short "Act, 1973) read with Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Development Act, 1976 (in short "Act, 1976) for withdrawal of the revision petition. Though the petitioner has already moved the application for withdrawal of the case, till date the same has not been withdrawn.

¶20

He submits that in view of the Government Order and the Board Resolution, the Authority is not in a position to process the application of the petitioner, as pressed before this Court in absence of any such formal order passed by the revisional authority on the withdrawal application.

¶21

Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel in response thereto submits that a hyper technical objection has been taken by the respondent Authority, where the petitioner has moved an application under Section 41(3) of the Act, 1973 read with Section 12 of the.Act, 1976. Later, the withdrawal application has been moved in the said revision. He submits that even, otherwise, there is no such impediment to the respondent not

¶22

WRIC No. 39715 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

process the application of the petitioner. He submits that in view of the objection so taken some time may be accorded to ascertain the decision, if any, on the said application.

¶25

Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned A.C.S.C. for the State respondents may also apprise the Court as under what circumstances, in case the withdrawal application is moved, the same has not been processed by the revisional authority till date.

¶26

It is expected that on or before the next date fixed, a formal order must be passed on the withdrawal application.

¶27

Put up this matter as fresh on 02.12.2025.

¶28

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) November 14, 2025

¶29

Pkb/

¶30

Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S S.D.S. Infracon Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S S.D.S. Infracon Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajveer Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Roop Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pankaj Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Raghvendra Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 6 Others

Smt. Manju Devi and Another vs Union of India and 2 Others

Pappu vs Executive Engineer, National Highway Khand and Another