# Conwood Medipharma Pvt. Ltd v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 892
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-25
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 27322 of 2025
- **Bench:** Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/conwood-medipharma-pvt-ltd-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52769
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Anjali Upadhya, C.S.C., Shivam Yadav

Issue for Consideration
The primary issue was whether GNIDA could
legally charge lease premiums, interest, and
penal interest or cancel an allotment, when it
failed to deliver actual physical possession of
the entire contiguous piece of allotted land due
to farmer occupation and the existence of a
pond on the site. The petitioner was allotted an
institutional plot in 2010. a registered lease
deed was executed in february 2011, but the
petitioner received only "paper possession".

Headnotes
Civil matter-Constitution of India,1950Article
226-U.P.
Urban
Planning
and
Development Act,1973-Section 41(3)-U.P.
Revenue
Code,2006-Section
101-Paper
possession Vs. Actual physical possession-
Mere execution of a lease deed does not
satisfy the authority's obligation if the
land is occupied by third parties (farmers)
or consists of non-allottable features (like
a pond)-Charging lease premiums or
interest based on the date of paper
possession,
while
land
remains
inaccessible, is legally unsustainable-The
court granted the Zero period benefit from
the date of lease deed until the date of
actual physical possession is delivered.
Directions issued.
Held
The High Court quashed the cancellation and
revision orders. The court ruled that the
respondent
authority
could
not
demand
payment or penalize the allottee when they
11 All. Conwood Medipharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
893
themselves failed to provide encumbrance-free,
physical possession of the land, The court found
that the authority's claim of "shifting the pond"
to be legally and factually incorrect, especially
as the supporting Government Order had been
previously declared unconstitutional. Under the
U.P.
Revenue
Code, and
supreme
court
precedents like "Hinch Lal Tiwari" land recorded
as a pond cannot be filled or used for other
purposes.(Para 25 to 35) (E-6)

List of Acts
Constitution of India, 1950,
-U.P. Urban
Planning and Development Act,1973, U.P.
Revenue Code,2006

List of Keywords
Lease rent, interest on instalments, Penal
Interest,
Zero
Period,
Actual
Physical
Possession,
Greater
Noida
Industrial
Development Authority (GNIDA), Encumbrance
Lease Premium, Cancellation of allottment,.

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION:Writ - CNo. 27322of 2025
From the judgment and order dated 25.11.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Conwood Medipharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State
Of U.P.&Ors.

Appearances for Parties

Advs. for the Petitioner:
Tarun Agrawal

Advs. for the Respondents:
Anjali Upadhya, C.S.C., Shivam Yadav

## Text

892 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
College, Prayagraj and Girls' High School
& College, Prayagraj shall be operated
jointly by the Principals of the respective
Institutions and any other officer not below
the rank of Additional District Magistrate
appointed by the Collector, Prayagraj."

 VI. In view of above discussion,
it is directed that the accounts of both
Institutions i.e. CIPBC (Church of India,
Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon) and CNI
(Church of North India) shall be operated
jointly by respective Principal, District
Magistrate, Prayagraj and Commissioner
of Police, Prayagraj. Court also appoints
Justice Umesh Kumar, Former Judge,
High Court, Allahabad (who has given
his consent) as an Observer, who may
inspect the record and in case of any
error, he may direct District Magistrate or
Commissioner to verify records. He will
ensure that quarterly audit be took place
by independent Chartered Accountant at
Prayagraj. He will also ensure that
Management of College be run smoothly.
He will be at liberty to move an
application
before
this
Court,
if
circumstances so warrants to seek any
direction from this Court. An Office be
provided to him at the premises of both
Colleges
so
that
he
on
his
own
convenience may sit at Office. The
Principal
will
provide
necessary
infrastructure
and
staff
on
his
requirement, if any.

28.
All
writ
petitions
are
accordingly disposed off.

29. Registrar (Compliance) to take
steps.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 892
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.11.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ - C No. 27322 of 2025

Conwood Medipharma Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Tarun Agrawal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anjali Upadhya, C.S.C., Shivam Yadav

Issue for Consideration
The primary issue was whether GNIDA could
legally charge lease premiums, interest, and
penal interest or cancel an allotment, when it
failed to deliver actual physical possession of
the entire contiguous piece of allotted land due
to farmer occupation and the existence of a
pond on the site. The petitioner was allotted an
institutional plot in 2010. a registered lease
deed was executed in february 2011, but the
petitioner received only "paper possession".

Headnotes
Civil matter-Constitution of India,1950Article
226-U.P.
Urban
Planning
and
Development Act,1973-Section 41(3)-U.P.
Revenue
Code,2006-Section
101-Paper
possession Vs. Actual physical possession-
Mere execution of a lease deed does not
satisfy the authority's obligation if the
land is occupied by third parties (farmers)
or consists of non-allottable features (like
a pond)-Charging lease premiums or
interest based on the date of paper
possession,
while
land
remains
inaccessible, is legally unsustainable-The
court granted the Zero period benefit from
the date of lease deed until the date of
actual physical possession is delivered.
Directions issued.
Held
The High Court quashed the cancellation and
revision orders. The court ruled that the
respondent
authority
could
not
demand
payment or penalize the allottee when they
11 All. Conwood Medipharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
893
themselves failed to provide encumbrance-free,
physical possession of the land, The court found
that the authority's claim of "shifting the pond"
to be legally and factually incorrect, especially
as the supporting Government Order had been
previously declared unconstitutional. Under the
U.P.
Revenue
Code, and
supreme
court
precedents like "Hinch Lal Tiwari" land recorded
as a pond cannot be filled or used for other
purposes.(Para 25 to 35) (E-6)

List of Acts
Constitution of India, 1950,
-U.P. Urban
Planning and Development Act,1973, U.P.
Revenue Code,2006

List of Keywords
Lease rent, interest on instalments, Penal
Interest,
Zero
Period,
Actual
Physical
Possession,
Greater
Noida
Industrial
Development Authority (GNIDA), Encumbrance
Lease Premium, Cancellation of allottment,.

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION:Writ - CNo. 27322of 2025
From the judgment and order dated 25.11.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Conwood Medipharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State
Of U.P.&Ors.

Appearances for Parties

Advs. for the Petitioner:
Tarun Agrawal

Advs. for the Respondents:
Anjali Upadhya, C.S.C., Shivam Yadav

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard Shri Shashi Nandan, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Prashant
Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Shri Vijay Shankar, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel appearing on
behalf of Respondent No.1 as well as Shri
Shivam Yadav, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and
perused the record.

2.
Pleadings
have
already
been
exchanged between the parties.

3. With the consent of the counsel for
the parties, the present writ petition is
disposed of finally at the admission stage
itself.

4. The petitioner has preferred the
present writ petition inter-alia with the
following prayers:-

i) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the
impugned order dated 30.08.2024 passed
by the respondent no.1, as well as the order
dated 06.03.2023 passed by the Additional
Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida
Industrial
Development
Authority
(Annexure Nos. 1 and 2);

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of Mandamus commanding
the respondent authority to charge annual
lease premium only subsequently from the
date of actual physical possession of the
plot together with possession letter;

iii) Issue a writ order or direction
in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding
the respondent authority to treat as zero
period the entire duration for which the
respondent authority could not deliver
possession of one continuous piece of land
including plot nos. 312, 313, 315;"

5. The petitioner is a company
incorporated under the provisions of the
Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner was
allotted an institutional plot being Plot
No.22 located in Sector Tech Zone-IV,
GNIDA admeasuring 1,16,966 sq. mtrs. It
is stated in paragraph-9 of the writ petition
that originally the aforesaid plot was
allotted in the name of M/s. Indo Gulf
894 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Diagnostics and Research Center Private
Limited. Subsequently the same was
transferred in the name of petitioner and the
copy of the letter of allotment issued by the
Greater Noida Industrial Development
Authority (hereinafter referred as GNIDA)
dated 19.05.2010 is appended as Annexure4 to the writ petition.

6. Premium of the Plot was fixed as
Rs.28,79,54,200/-. Out of the aforesaid
total premium, 10% of this amount was to
be paid up-front as earnest money. The
balance 90% was to be paid in interest
bearing installments commencing from
18.07.2011 till 18.07.2020.

7. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter of
allotment,
registered
lease
deed
was
executed
between
the
petitioner
and
GNIDA on 22.02.2011, copy of which is
appended as Annexure-5 to the writ
petition.

8. It is stated in paragraph-12 of the
writ petition that petitioner was given only
the paper-possession of the aforesaid leased
plot on 22.02.2011. However, till date the
petitioner has not been given actual
physical possession of the entire allotted
area. It is argued that respondent-authority
failed to deliver actual physical possession
of the entire allotted plot on account of
certain parcels of land being in the
possession of the farmers. Thus, since the
authority
failed
to
provide
physical
possession of entire contiguous piece of
land leased to the petitioner, it was not
possible for the petitioner to execute the
proposed project for which the land has
been allotted to him.

9. It is argued that due to hindrance over
plot nos.312, 313 and 315, the respondent
GNIDA could not hand over the peaceful
physical possession of the land allotted to the
petitioner. It is further argued that plot
nos.313 and 315 were recorded in the name
of farmers and GNIDA itself did not have the
possession on these lands. With respect to
plot no.312, the petitioner claims existence of
a pond over the aforesaid land.

10. It is argued that the large piece of
land, being plot no.312 area 0.780 hectares
was recorded as a pond in the revenue record,
as such the petitioner could not have carried
out the constructions over the plot as well. It
is further argued that from the revenue extract
that plot nos.313 and 315 from part of the
area allotted to the petitioner which is still in
possession of the farmers and GNIDA is not
in a possession to deliver actual physical
possession to the petitioner.

11. In this view of the matter, it is
argued that the relief of zero period be
granted to the petitioner till such time the
aforesaid
plots
were
cleared
for
all
impediments and their actual possession
handed over to the petitioner. When the terms
and conditions of the letter of allotment was
not complied with by the petitioner, the
petitioner was served with a demand notice
dated 21.06.2013 by which the respondentauthority made an additional demand of
Rs.6,23,23,800/- upon the petitioner towards
additional
compensation.
The
aforesaid
demand was issued pursuant to directions
given by this Court to the authorities for
payment of additional compensation @64.7%
to all the tenure holders who were parties in
the writ petition's and whose notifications
were under challenge in the bunch of cases
connected with the case of Gajraj and others
vs. State of U.P. and others.

12. In response to the demand notice
dated
21.06.2013,
the
letter
dated
31.10.2013 was written by the petitioner
11 All. Conwood Medipharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
895
requesting the GNIDA to treat the duration
between the date of execution of the lease
deed and the date till physical possession of
the entire contiguous allotted area is
delivered to the petitioner as zero period.

13. Vide letter dated 31.07.2014
issued by the Additional Chief Executive
Officer, GNIDA the benefit of zero period
was
granted
to
the
petitioner
till
31.08.2014, copy of which is appended as
Annexure-9 to the writ petition.

14. It is argued that thereafter wholly
illegally vide letter dated 30.01.2015 issued by
the GNIDA a demand was raised for the sum
of Rs.18,87,17,933.53/-, the reply to the
aforesaid letter was submitted by the petitioner
on 17.02.2015. Counsel for the petitioner also
placed reliance upon the copy of the 188th
board meeting of Noida duly attended and
approved by the Chief Executive Officer of the
respondent-authority. He also placed reliance
upon the Supplementary Agenda of the 188th
board meeting.

15. In the aforesaid board meetings it
was resolved by the respondent-authority to
extend the benefit of zero-period to
allottees
deprived
of
possession
or
construction for any reason whatsoever. It
is argued that the case of the petitioner is
squarely
covered
by
the
aforesaid
resolutions and thus, the respondentauthorities are bound to grant the benefit of
zero period for the duration in which the
respondent could not hand over the actual
physical possession of the contiguous plot
to the petitioner. He also placed reliance
upon the 192nd board meeting held on
02.06.2017 in which in was again resolved
to provide zero-period benefit.

16. It is argued that in place of
granting the benefit of zero period, the
respondent-authorities
issued
another
demand notice dated 02.05.2017 asking the
petitioner
to
deposit
the
sum
of
Rs.39,63,42,358.53/-
within
15
days,
failing which the allotment was to be
cancelled. It is argued that issuance of the
aforesaid notice is itself illegal. Since the
respondent-authorities
are
under
an
obligation to extend the benefit of zeroperiod.

17. In this view of the matter, a
detailed reply was submitted by the
petitioner on 07.06.2017 again making a
request to grant the benefit of zero period
to the petitioner. Since no decision has
been taken by the authorities, on the
request made as stated above, the petitioner
approached this Court by filing Writ C
No.45587 of 2017. The said writ petition
was finally disposed of by the Division
Bench of this Court vide judgment and
order dated 22.09.2017. By the aforesaid
judgment, a direction was given by this
Court to the Chief Executive Officer of the
GNIDA to take a decision on the
representation of the petitioner within a
period of two months.

18. Pursuant to the aforesaid, a fresh
representation was also submitted by the
petitioner on 13.10.2017. Subsequent to the
aforesaid, an order dated 06.03.2023 was
passed by the Additional Chief Executive
Officer, GNIDA by which the allotment of
the plot in question to the petitioner was
cancelled.

19. Aggrieved against the aforesaid,
the petitioner again approached this Court
by filing Writ C No.15367 of 2023. The
said writ petition was duly entertained and
the order dated 15.05.2023 was passed by
the Division Bench of this Court directing
the petitioner to deposit the sum of Rs.10
896 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
crores within two weeks and Rs.15 crores
till 30.06.2023. It is further provided that
no third party rights would be created in
respect of land in question till the next date
of listing. It is argued that aforesaid interim
order was duly complied with and affidavit
to this fact was also filed. It is argued that
the sum of Rs.7,99,66,863/- was deposited
by the petitioner with the GNIDA on
15.07.2011 and the sum of Rs.2,02,36,000/-
were spent towards stamp duty for
registration of the lease deed.

20. Though the order passed by the
GNIDA dated 06.03.2023 was challenged
by the petitioner before this Court by filing
Writ C No.15367 of 2023, on the legal
advice taken by the petitioner he also
preferred a Revision before the State
Government as provided under Sub-Section
(3) of Section 41 of the U.P. Urban
Planning and Development Act, 1973 on
24.05.2024. The aforesaid revision was
rejected by the Respondent No.1 vide order
dated 30.08.2024.

21. Aggrieved against the aforesaid
orders namely the order dated 06.03.2023
passed by the GNIDA by which the
allotment of the petitioner has been
cancelled as well as the order dated
30.08.2024 passed by the Respondent No.1
by which the Revision preferred by the
petitioner was rejected, the petitioner has
preferred the present writ petition.

22. It is argued that an application for
withdrawal in Writ C No.15367 of 2023
has been filed by the petitioner for
dismissed the aforesaid writ petition,
which has already been allowed on
22.08.2025. It is argued that possession
of plot no.312 and 313 was not handed
over to the petitioner.

23. On the other hand, it is argued by
the learned counsel for the respondents that
insofar as the plot no.312 is concerned, the
same has been relocated in favour of the
petitioner
to
different
location
on
13.04.2015, pursuant to the Government
Order dated 03.06.2016 which permitted
such kind of relocation. In this view of the
matter, it is argued that grievance of the
petitioner has already been removed by the
respondent-authority in the year 2015 itself,
hence the petitioner is liable to pay
contractual dues under the lease deed.

24. Heard counsel for the parties and
perused the record.

25. The sole question required to be
determined in the present writ petition that
whether
the
respondent-authority
has
handed over the possession of entire
demised plot no.315 which is recorded in
the latest revenue record as Navin Parti
land. The ownership of a Naveen Parti land
vests in the Gram Sabha.

26. The State Government can resume
the land and transfer it to authority.
However, entry in the revenue records
shows that no such exercise has been done
so far. Insofar as the plot no.313 is
concerned, the respondent-authorities has
not denied that the aforesaid plot is
recorded in the name of original tenure
holders. Specific averments made in
paragraph nos.-15, 16 and 50 of the writ
petition have not been denied by the
respondent
authority
in
its
counter
affidavit. Thus, it can be safely concluded
that plot nos.313 and 315 are not in the
possession of the authority. In any event, it
is not in the possession of the petitioner.
Therefore, it is clear that possession of plot
nos.313 & 315 could not be handed over to
11 All. Conwood Medipharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
897
the petitioner. Paragraphs-15, 16 and 50 of
the writ petition reads as follows:-

"15. That, it is categorically
stated that failure to deliver actual physical
possession of one contiguous chunk of land
derailed the entire project of the petitioner.
It could not have carried out developments
having regard to certain parcels of land
being in the occupation of the farmers.

16. That, in this regard the
petitioner is attaching the revenue extracts of
plot nos. 312, 313 and 315 in order to
illustrate that possession of these plots forming
part of the allotted area is not with the
authority till date. A copy of the relevant
revenue COMM extract for the period 14251430F is being enclosed herewith and marked
as Annexure No. 15 to this writ petition.

50. That it can be seen from the
revenue records that plot no. 313is
recorded in the name of the original tenure
holders Rajendra and Jagram. Likewise
plot no. 315 is recorded as an agricultural
land in the name of one Lutiram."

27. Reply to the aforesaid paragraph
has been made in paragraph nos.22, 23 and
36 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf
of Respondent-authorities, which reads as
follows:-

"22.
That
the
contents
of
paragraph nos.14 and 15 of the writ
petition are not admitted. In reply thereto it
is submitted that the petitioner institution
was in possession of the entire allotted land
except a portion of the land allotted to it"

23.
That
the
contents
of
paragraph no.16 of the writ petition are
relates to the petitioner company itself,
hence need no comments.

36.
That
the
contents
of
paragraph no.47, 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52 of
the writ petition are not admitted. In reply
thereto it is stated that the Authority
executed the lease deed of the said plot in
favour of the petitioner organization on
22.02.2011 and handed over the possession
of the plot to the organization on the same
day,
the
petitioner
organization had
possession of the entire allotted plot except
a portion. As far as the pond is concerned,
it has been planned in the green belt near
Itada Village under Government Order
dated 30.06.2016 with the approval of the
then
Chief
Executive
Officer
dated
13.04.2015."

28. Arguments has been raised by the
counsel for the respondents that pond was
shifted in the year 2015 pursuant to the
Government Order issued in the year 2016.
The specific query was raised by the Court
to explain this anomaly of dates, no
satisfactory reply was furnished by the
respondent-authorities.

29. Counsel for the respondentauthorities has also not brought on record
any documents evidencing proceedings for
exchange of land under Section 101 of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Apart from the
same, counsel for the petitioner also placed
reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Singh
vs. Ministry of Environment & others,
Civil Appeal No.5109 of 2019, wherein the
Government Order dated 03.06.2016 was
declared as violation of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.

30. Once the Government Order dated
03.06.2016
has
been
declared
unconstitutional, no benefit can possibly
accrue to the respondent-authority under
the
said
Government
Order.
This
898 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
justification given by the counsel for the
respondent-authority for shifting the pond
under the authority of the Government
Order dated 03.06.2016 has a Shaky
Constitutional
Foundation.
From
the
aforesaid discussion, it is therefore clear
that plot no. 312 which is still recorded as a
pond has not been handed over to the
petitioner.

31. In this view of the matter, the
Court is more than satisfied that claim of
relocation of the pond is both factually
and legally incorrect.

32. In view of the facts as stated
above, it is clear that possession of plot
no.313 and 315 was not handed over to
the petitioner due to the fact that
possession of these plots were not with
the Respondent Noida Authority. Insofar
as the plot no.312 is concerned, it is
clear that the same is still recorded as a
pond in the revenue records.

33. In this view of the matter, the
Court is of the opinion that impugned
order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the
respondent no.1, as well as the order
dated
06.03.2023
passed
by
the
Additional Chief Executive Officer,
Greater Noida Industrial Development
Authority/respondent No.2 (Annexure
Nos. 1 and 2) are liable to be set aside
and is hereby quashed.

34. Mandamus is issued to the
respondents to grant the benefit of zero
period
for
the
entire
duration
commencing from execution of the lease
deed till delivery of actual physical
possession
of
the
entire
land,
in
particular Plot Nos.312, 313 and 315.
The authority shall not levy any lease
rent or interest (delayed or penal
interest) from the petitioner for nonpayment of sums due.

35. With the aforesaid observations,
the writ petition is allowed. No order as to
costs.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 898
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

Writ - C No. 28215 of 2025
Alongwith other cases

Suryadev Pathak ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Anuj Agrawal, C.S.C. Mahendra
Pratap, Pranjal Mehrotra, Rajesh Kumar
Jaiswal

Issue for Consideration
The matter pertains to maintainability of a writ
petition seeking a mandamus for the timebound
disposal
of
arbitration
proceedings
initiated under section 3G(5) of the National
Highways Act, 1956. The court also has to
examine the applicability of section 29A of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 to such
statutory arbitrations and whether the High
court under Article 226 is the appropriate forum
for seeking extensions or directions for these
proceedings.

Headnotes
Civil matter-Constitution of India,1950Article 226- Arbitration and Conciliation
Act,1996-Section 29A- National Highways