Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Thru. Authorized Signatory Sudeep Vidyarth Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Infra. and Industrial Development Lko. and Another

Heard Shri Sachin Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the petitioner- Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Shri Devendra Mohan Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. and Shri Apoorva Tiwari and Shri Siddharth Nandwani, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2-M/s Focus Computech Pvt. Ltd.

¶12

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner- Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority has challenged the validity of an order dated 19.07.2024 passed by the State Government in a Revision under Section 41(3) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 r/w Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 whereby the revision filed by the respondent No.2 against an order dated 23.04.2021 passed by the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority cancelling the allotment of Plot No.47, Sector Knowledge Park-5, Greater Noida measuring 24,224.16 Sq. Mtr. was cancelled for violation of condition No.DD of the lease deed, was set-aside and the allotment was restored without any restoration charges.

¶13

The revisional authority has directed that the benefit of free time extension will be granted to the respondent No.2 for the period since 23.04.2021 that is the date of cancellation of allotment, till passing of the revisional order. The respondent No.2 has already been granted the benefit of zero period during Covid-19 pandemic in terms of a Government Order dated 20.07.2022. The order further provides that the authority should recalculate the dues payable by the respondent No.2 which shall be accepted in two six-monthly installments. The respondent No.2 should be granted time extension for completion of the project subject to payment of fee.

¶14

The respondent No.2 has filed Writ-C No.9568 of 2025 challenging validity of the aforesaid order.

¶15

WRIC No. 7382 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2- M/s Focus Computech Pvt. Ltd. has submitted that an identically worded order was passed in respect of another allotee namely, M/s Pooja Info-tech Pvt. Ltd., on 14.06.2024 and the said order has been complied with by Greater Noida Development Authority whereas the authority has chosen not to comply with the order in case of the respondent No.2, which action is discriminatory and arbitrary.

¶18

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has further submitted that in case the authority complies with the revisional order, like it has done in the case of M/s Pooja Info-tech Pvt. Ltd., the respondent No.2 is willing to forego its challenge to the revisional order and he will not press the writ petition.

¶19

Assailing validity of the revisional order, the learned counsel for the petitionerauthority, Shri Sachin Upadhyay has submitted that the cancellation order dated 23.04.2021 was already subjudice before this Court sitting at Allahabad in Writ-C No.13694 of 2021. On 08.07.2021, a Division Bench of this Court sitting at Allahabad had passed an interim order providing that subject to allottee depositing a sum of Rs.2.5 crores towards default in payment of premium and lease rent by 16.08.2021, operation and effect of the impugned communications dated 19.03.2021 and 23.04.2021, as also press release dated 01.06.2021, shall remain stayed. The allottee did not deposit the amount as per the order dated 08.07.2021 and on 02.02.2023, another order was passed by the Division Bench recording that as the petitioner has not complied with the order dated 08.07.2021, no interim order was existing in its favour. On the issue regarding computation made by the authority on 19.03.2021, four weeks time was granted to the authority to file a counter affidavit. The Division Bench clarified in the order dated 02.02.2023 that pendency of the writ petition would not come in the way of the allottee to approach the Competent Authority, who would deal with the request of the petitioner in accordance with the law.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2- allottee has submitted that it was in furtherance of this clarification made and liberty granted in the order dated 02.02.2023, that the allottee had filed a revision before the State Government. The revision was not filed concealing the factum of pendency of the writ petition, rather the allottee has specifically disclosed that the revision was being filed in terms of the liberty granted by this Court in the order dated 02.02.2023.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and more particularly, in view of the clarification made in the order dated 02.02.2023 referred to herein above, this Court is of the considered view that filing of a revision under Section 41(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 during pendency of the writ petition was clearly permitted by this Court and, therefore, the revisional order cannot be assailed on the ground that the revision was entertained and decided during pendency of the writ petition.

¶22

WRIC No. 7382 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the revisional authority has erred in allowing the revision when the allottee had committed a default in payment of the dues. He has submitted that where the allottee has paid the dues and has merely failed to utilize the land for the purpose it was allotted for within the stipulated time, relaxation can be granted to the allottee but where the allottee has neither utilized the land nor has paid the entire dues, no benefit can be granted to such defaulting allottees.

¶25

In reply to this submission, Shri Apoorva Tiwari, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has drawn attention of this Court to para-20 of the revisional order wherein the revisional authority has referred to an order passed by this Court sitting at Allahabad in M/s. J.M. Housing v. State of U.P . in Writ C No.2238 of 2021 wherein this Court referred to the proviso appended to Section 7 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, which reads as follows:-

¶26

"Provided that where any land so allotted is not utilized for the purpose for which it was allotted within the period of 5 years from the date of possession of within the period fixed for such utilization in the conditions of allotment, whichever is longer, the lease deed will stand cancelled and the land shall vest with the Authority. Provided further where the aforesaid period has already lapsed before the commencement of this Act, the Authority shall give a notice to the allottee to use the land for the purpose for which it was allotted within a period of one year and if within the above period of one year the allottee does not use the land, then the allotment and lease deed shall stand automatically cancelled."

¶27

The Division Bench held as follows:-

¶28

"5. The 1st part of the proviso provides that where any land so allotted is not utilized for the purpose for which it was allotted within a period of 5 years from the date of possession or within the period fixed for such utilization in the conditions of allotment, whichever is longer, the lease deed will stand cancelled and the land shall vest with the Authority. The 2nd part of the proviso provides that where the aforesaid period has already lapsed i.e. where the allotted land is not utilized within 5 years from the date of possession or within the specified period in the terms of allotment and the said period has expired before the commencement of the Amending Act, the authority is obliged to give a notice to use the land for the purpose for which it was allotted within a period of one year and if within the above period of one year the allottee does not use the land, then the allotment and lease deed shall stand automatically cancelled.

¶29

6. Thus, the condition precedent for applicability of the 2nd part of the proviso is that the period for utilization should have expired before the

¶30

WRIC No. 7382 of 2025

¶31

4

¶32

commencement of the Amending Act i.e. 28.7.2020 and the Authority before cancelling the allotment / lease had given a notice to the allottee to utilize the land within a year. Sri Singh, on instructions, does not dispute that no notice as contemplated in the 2nd part of the proviso to Section 7 of the Act was ever issued to the petitioner which is also authenticated in the impugned order as the same does not refer to issuance of any such notice, rendering the order dated 7.1.2021 vulnerable in law. "

¶33

Subsequently, in M/S Logic Infomedia Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. in Writ-C No.18969 of 2021 decided on 01.09.2021, another Division Bench of this Court sitting at Allahabad relied upon the judgment in the case of J.M. Housing (supra) and further held as follows:-

¶34

"14. The inter play of the two parts of the proviso inserted to Section 7 of the 1976 Act by the amending Act (U.P. Act No.25 of 2020), as interpreted by a coordinate Bench of this Court (noticed above), is in sync with the statement of objects and reasons of the amending Act and, therefore, we are in respectful agreement with the view taken therein. To put it simply, under the first part of the proviso the lease deed stands cancelled where the land allotted is not utilized for the purpose for which it was allotted within the period of five years from the date of possession or within the period fixed for such utilisation in the conditions of allotment, whichever is longer. But where that period has expired before the commencement of the amending Act, that is before 28.07.2020, the second part of the proviso comes into play. Under which, the Authority is to give a notice to the allottee to use the land for the purpose for which it was allotted within a period of one year and if within the above period of one year the allottee does not use the land, then the allotment and lease deed stand automatically cancelled."

¶35

Admittedly, in the present case, the land was allotted to the respondent No.2 in the year 2007. The lease deed was executed in the year 2011 and the possession of the land was delivered to the allottee at the time of execution of the lease deed in the year 2011. Seven years period contemplated for utilization of the land completed on 10.04.2018. The aforesaid proviso was not in existence at that time and it was inserted in the year 2020. Therefore, as per the proviso, a notice of one year was required to be given to the petitioner before taking any cancellation of the lease, which has not been done in the present case. Therefore, the cancellation of lease has been made in violation of the statutory provision contained in proviso appended to Section 7 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act.

¶36

Shri Tiwari has further submitted that the facts in the case of M/s Pooja Info-tech Pvt. Ltd. were similar as M/s Pooja Info-tech Pvt. Ltd. has committed default in payment of the dues and had failed to utilize the land within the stipulated period. The

¶37

WRIC No. 7382 of 2025

¶38

5

¶39

revision of M/s Pooja Info-tech Pvt. Ltd. has been allowed by means of an order dated 14.06.2024 passed in Revision No.3139/74-4-24/55 (Appeal/24). The respondent No.2 is situated similarly yet the petitioner is treating it differently.

¶40

The petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit trying to justify the differential treatment given to the respondent No.2 and M/s Pooja InfoTech Pvt. Ltd. stating that M/s Pooja InfoTech has not challenged the revisional order and it had entered into an out of court settlement with the authority. However, copy of any settlement entered into between M/s Pooja Info-tech Pvt. Ltd. and Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority has not been annexed with the rejoinder affidavit. What has been annexed is an affidavit submitted by the Director of M/s Pooja InfoTech Pvt. Ltd. stating as follows:-

¶41

"I, Rishi Chandel, on behalf of M/s Pooja InfoTech Pvt. Ltd, hereby submit this letter as an affirmation and undertaking on behalf of the company, in response to the directions issued by the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) concerning the land located at Plot No. 19. KP-5. Noida, Uttar Pradesh

¶42

As per the directions of the Uttar Pradesh Government, under Section 4. No. 3139/77-4/24/55 (Appeal)/24, dated 14.06.2024, and Shashan Aadesh Order No 41(3), the company fully acknowledges and agrees to comply with all other stipulation prescribed for the use of the said plot as IT/ES Plot

¶43

We hereby undertake that

¶44

1. We shall comply with all terms and conditions, as per the aforementioned order set by GNIDA

¶45

2. We have no objections for any conditions imposed by GNIDA in relation to the restoration of the land.

¶46

3. We will adhere to all prescribed requirements as mandated by the applicable laws and regulations.

¶47

POOJA INFOTECH PVT.LTD "

¶48

A perusal of the aforesaid affidavit indicates that firstly, it is not a settlement between the parties and the allottee as a settlement can only be made through a bipartite document. Secondly, the Director of Pooja InfoTech Ltd. has merely acknowledged and agreed to comply with the stipulations prescribed for the use of the plot in light of the order dated 14.06.2024 passed in revision and it has undertaken to comply with all the terms and conditions of the aforesaid order. It cannot be said to be a settlement and it is merely an undertaking for complying with the revisional order.

¶49

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has made a categorical statement before this Court on the basis of instructions provided to him that the respondent No.2 is also ready and willing and is undertaking to comply with all the terms and conditions of the revisional order.

¶50

In these circumstances, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶51

WRIC No. 7382 of 2025

¶52

6

¶53

are without force and the same are rejected.

¶54

There is no error or illegality in the impugned revisional order dated 19.07.2024 (annexed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

¶55

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶56

The petitioner may issue a demand notice in compliance of the revisional order dated 19.07.2024 within a period of two weeks from today.

¶57

October 29, 2025

¶58

-Amit K-

¶59

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶60

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Thru. Authorized Signatory Sudeep Vidyarth v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Infra. and Industrial Development Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Thru. Authorized Signatory Sudeep Vidyarth v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Infra. and Industrial Development Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kiran Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Suman Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin. Secy. Law Deptt. Govt. Lko. and 4 Others

Krishna Kumar (Dead) and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector Kheri/Prescribed Authority Ceilling

Anuj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

U.P. Awas Ewam Vikas Parishad Thru. Executive Engineer Lko vs Pawan Kumar

Dharm Kumar vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.