# Larsen & Toubro Ltd v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 10 ILRA 957
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-10-01
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 16616 of 2024
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Prashant Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/larsen-toubro-ltd-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51168
- **Pages:** 57

## Headnote

A. Real ESt. Law - Registration of Project
-
Promoter
-
Penalty
-
Real
ESt.
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 -
Sections 4 & 5(2) - RERA Act, 2016:
Section 43(5) r/w Section 44 - U.P. Real
ESt. (Regulation and Development) Rules,
2016: Rule 3(1)(f); The Uttar Pradesh Real
ESt.
(Regulation
and
Development)
(Agreement For Sale/Lease) Rules, 2018;
Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of
Construction,
Ownership
and
Maintenance) Act, 2010.

There is no Section, Rules or Clause under
the RERA Act or Rules, which makes it
mandatory
for
the
owner
to
be
a
Promoter. (Para 142)

It is apparent that a promoter is the one
who is responsible for constructing the
project or causes to be constructed and is
responsible for selling the project. In this
case, on a plain reading of the definition
the petitioner falls within the category of
the promoter as he is constructing and
selling the project and also have the
necessary agreements from the owner of
the land. (Para 143)

A plain reading of Section 2(zk) shows that the
promoter is defined as a person who has been
assigned development rights in respect of a
project for the purpose of constructing and
selling the apartments. The Parliament in its
wisdom has used the word 'or' and not 'and' and
hence the promoter need not be the owner of
the land, but can be a person who is developing
the land even on the basis of power of attorney.
When the definition is not ambiguous, it
has to be read as it is, and the scope of
promoter cannot be expanded. (Para 141)

In the present case, the promoter is not
the owner of the land, so he will fall under
958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the category of Rule 3(f). Rule 3(f)
postulates the possibility when the developer
does not own the title of the land but he is only
developing, in that case the promoter needs to
submit the consent of the owner of the land
along with the copy of proper agreement with
the person who has the title. All these
documents sought under the Rules have been
furnished and inspite of completing all the
formalities as laid down u/Rule 3 of Rules 2016
yet the respondents have illegally held back the
registration. (Para 138, 142)

B. JIL would not fall in the category of
promoter for the project. The forms
annexed to U.P. Real ESt. (Regulation and
Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease)
Rules, 2018 provides standard form of
agreement to sale/lease which clearly
contemplates a situation where the owner
is not a promoter. (Para 149)

It is settled that being owner of the land
would not essentially make them the
promoter and they would not suffer the
consequence of being a promoter. (Para
148)

RERA does not require owner of the land to be a
promoter, infact the other consequences in the
rule makes it clear that the promoter could be
the owner OR the person who is developing the
project on his land. (Para 144)

While drafting the Act, the legislature intended
for two parties to be made co-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,997 of 191,621. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39997 for what follows._

10 All. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
957
appropriate application accompanied with
complete documents which they seek to
rely upon to substantiate their claim.

(d). The Chief Executive Officer,
NOIDA shall get a spot inspection done by
a team constituted by it while fixing a
specific date in the 4th week of November,
2024.

(e). The spot inspection shall be
done in the presence of the writ petitioners
and the affected parties.

(f). A copy of the inspection
report shall be served upon the writ
petitioners/ affected parties by hand, by
speed post/ e-mail by 14.11.2024, granting
them a suitable time to submit their
objections within further 10 days, say
26.11.2024.

(g). On the receipt of the
objections, a date shall be fixed for hearing
in the 2nd week of December, 2024.

(h). Hearing be done and the
orders be passed by within a period of two
months thereafter.

(i). The orders to be passed by
C.E.O. NOIDA should be reasoned and
speaking dealing with each and every
contentions raised by the parties.

47. With the aforesaid observations,
the writ petitions are partly allowed.
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 957
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

Writ C No. 16616 of 2024

Larsen & Toubro Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Raghuvansh Misra, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Mohd. Afzal, Rahul Agarwal

A. Real ESt. Law - Registration of Project
-
Promoter
-
Penalty
-
Real
ESt.
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 -
Sections 4 & 5(2) - RERA Act, 2016:
Section 43(5) r/w Section 44 - U.P. Real
ESt. (Regulation and Development) Rules,
2016: Rule 3(1)(f); The Uttar Pradesh Real
ESt.
(Regulation
and
Development)
(Agreement For Sale/Lease) Rules, 2018;
Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of
Construction,
Ownership
and
Maintenance) Act, 2010.

There is no Section, Rules or Clause under
the RERA Act or Rules, which makes it
mandatory
for
the
owner
to
be
a
Promoter. (Para 142)

It is apparent that a promoter is the one
who is responsible for constructing the
project or causes to be constructed and is
responsible for selling the project. In this
case, on a plain reading of the definition
the petitioner falls within the category of
the promoter as he is constructing and
selling the project and also have the
necessary agreements from the owner of
the land. (Para 143)

A plain reading of Section 2(zk) shows that the
promoter is defined as a person who has been
assigned development rights in respect of a
project for the purpose of constructing and
selling the apartments. The Parliament in its
wisdom has used the word 'or' and not 'and' and
hence the promoter need not be the owner of
the land, but can be a person who is developing
the land even on the basis of power of attorney.
When the definition is not ambiguous, it
has to be read as it is, and the scope of
promoter cannot be expanded. (Para 141)

In the present case, the promoter is not
the owner of the land, so he will fall under
958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the category of Rule 3(f). Rule 3(f)
postulates the possibility when the developer
does not own the title of the land but he is only
developing, in that case the promoter needs to
submit the consent of the owner of the land
along with the copy of proper agreement with
the person who has the title. All these
documents sought under the Rules have been
furnished and inspite of completing all the
formalities as laid down u/Rule 3 of Rules 2016
yet the respondents have illegally held back the
registration. (Para 138, 142)

B. JIL would not fall in the category of
promoter for the project. The forms
annexed to U.P. Real ESt. (Regulation and
Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease)
Rules, 2018 provides standard form of
agreement to sale/lease which clearly
contemplates a situation where the owner
is not a promoter. (Para 149)

It is settled that being owner of the land
would not essentially make them the
promoter and they would not suffer the
consequence of being a promoter. (Para
148)

RERA does not require owner of the land to be a
promoter, infact the other consequences in the
rule makes it clear that the promoter could be
the owner OR the person who is developing the
project on his land. (Para 144)

While drafting the Act, the legislature intended
for two parties to be made co-promoters and
they
have
expressly
said
so
in
the
"Explanation" to Section 2(zk) wherein it has
been provided that "For the purposes of this
clause, where the person who constructs or
converts a building into apartments or
develops a plot for sale and the person who
sells
apartments
or
plots
are
different
persons, both of them shall be deemed to be
the promoters and shall be jointly liable as
such for the functions and responsibilities
specified", under this Act or the rules and
regulations made thereunder. The words
"cause it to be constructed" in Section
2(zk) have to be read in context of the
entire subsection and further apply only
to a promoter who is responsible for
construction. (Para 145)
The builder who do not own the land can be a
promoter alone. It further shows the intent of
the Legislature that the promoter need not be
the owner. The person who constructs and sells
is the promoter even if he is carrying on the
construction activities on someone else's land,
provided that a valid agreement has to be there
between the owner of land and the developer.
(Para 149)

C. Since the application was in proper
format
and
accompanied
by
all the
documents as laid down in Section 4(2),
there is no illegality in the application and
UPRERA
cannot
do
a
hair-splitting
exercise and ask for further documents
which are not even been asked for in
Section 4(2) of the RERA Act. (Para 154)

As per Section 4(1) every promoter has to make
an application to the Authority for registration of
the UPRERA project in the form and manner
provided accompanied by the fees. (Para 150)

The petitioner has made an application as a
developer wherein it was clearly St.d by him
that the land is owned by JIL. The fact is that
said land is actually owned by YEIDA and leased
out to JAL/JIL, who has given a permission by
way of Assignment Deed to develop the project
land on which the petitioner is supposed to
construct/sell the apartments to the allottees.
The
petitioner
apparently
comes
within
definition of 'promoter' wherein he does not
own the land but he is developing the land. The
application filed by the petitioner on 02.06.2023
completes all the formalities and has been
accompanied
by
all
the
documents
as
contemplated u/s 4(2) of RERA Act. (Para 151)

As per Section 2(zk) of the Act, the
promoter can be a person who owns the
land and wants to construct on it, or a
promoter can just be a developer who is
developing the apartments on the land
owned by somebody else. (Para 152)

In the supplementary reply filed by UPRERA, the
annexures confirm that all the details and
documents as required to be filed by the
petitioner have been received and they have
marked 'no objection' to the same. This was
reflected from the print out of the website of
10 All. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
959
UPRERA, which was filed along with the
supplementary reply. A plain perusal of the
document
uploaded
shows
that
all
the
documents as required by UPRERA to be
submitted, have been duly uploaded by the
petitioner. Since Section 4(2) lays down a
format and all the documents have to be
uploaded in the particular format and it has
been done so, since it is an online portal, no
further document can be uploaded. The
objections raised by UPRERA to include JIL as
co-promoter was not a mandatory requirement
as per the Act. (Para 153)

Thus, in view of clear provisions of the Act, it is
not open for UPRERA to impose the condition on
the petitioner to get JIL/JAL sign the application
as a co-promoter. The application filed by the
petitioner under the provisions of the Act and
Rules of RERA was complete and there was no
occasion for UPRERA to raise an objection,
which is not contemplated under the Act and
also to hold back the application for more than a
period of thirty days. (Para 155)

D. It is the mandatory duty of UPRERA to
act in accordance to the provisions of the
Act, and the UPRERA cannot hide from its
statutory obligations on the ground that
the application was incomplete and was
pending. As per Section 5(2) of the Act,
UPRERA had only two options to be exercised
within thirty days,- (a) to grant registration (b)
reject the application. As per the Act, it was
mandatory for UPRERA to exercise one of these
options within stipulated time of thirty days. If
UPRERA
had
serious
objections
on
the
application of the petitioner, and if they thought
it necessary to include JIL as promoter, and if
the same was not done within stipulated time,
they ought to have rejected the application.
UPRERA cannot keep any application pending
beyond the statutory period of thirty days. (Para
164)

Since, the application of the petitioner
was kept pending much beyond the period
of thirty days, hence, as per Section 5(2)
of the RERA Act, the project of the
petitioner
is
deemed
to
have
been
registered and UPRERA is bound to
provide
the
petitioner
registration
number, login Id and password to the
applicant/petitioner
for
accessing
the
website of the Authority and to create his
web page. (Para 168)

Section 5(2) was an answer to the
prospective ills in the system whether to
grant registration, the officers of the
authorities could harass the promoter or
extract a pound of flesh. The Legislature in
its wisdom has enacted Section 5 of the Act
which St.s that any application moved u/s 4 has
to be allowed or rejected within a period of
thirty days, failing which the application will be
deemed to have been approved. Definitely, this
provision has been introduced by the Legislature
to address the mischiefs which could possibly
happen. When the words of a section in the
Act is unambiguous, it is presumed that
the
legislature
has
deliberately
and
consciously used the words for achieving
the purpose of the Act. (Para 165, 169)

E. The petitioner by means of the
agreement has right to built and sell the
apartments made on the contracted area,
and also has right to transfer undivided
portion of the land on which the project
has
been
made
in
favour
of
the
Association of Allottees, and also has a
right
to
provide
water/sewerage/road/electricity etc. to
the project on behalf of JIL/JAL. A plain
reading of the Assignment Agreement read with
general Power of Attorney answers all the
apprehensions raised by the respondents. (Para
172)

F. The petitioner cannot ask for negative
parity
on
the
ground
of
similarly
situated
companies
who
had
been
granted
registration
whereas
the
petitioner
has
been
refused
for
registration. (Para 177)

G. It is settled that once a matter is
subjudice and a question of law is pending
consideration before a court of law, the
Authority ought not to act with undue
haste and interfere in the adjudication
process of the Court and any attempt of
the authority to decide the same matter,
which is pending before the court, would
be an overreach. (Para 181)
960 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
H. The anticipated danger should not be
remote, conjectural or far-fetched. It
should have proximate and direct nexus
with the expression. (Para 185)

An apprehension was raised by the respondents
that in case JIL/JAL is not made a co-promoter,
there could be a chance that the common area
of the building as well as amenities like water
supply, sewage system, electricity, road etc.,
which fall in the domain of JIL/JAL, could not be
provided to the allottees. No authority or the
court
could
move
on
apprehensions,
specially when, the apprehension is far-
fetched. The Act is absolutely clear that it does
not interfere in the ownership rights of the
owner and it is only there to take care of
interest of the allottees, in case, the project is
not completed or handed over in time to the
allottee, the Authority has to ensure the refund
of his money along with interest. Section 18 of
the RERA Act is answer to the apprehensions
raised by the respondents wherein return of
amount and compensation has been laid down.
(Para 184)

I. Words and Phrases - (i)'Promoter' - A
plain reading of Section 2(zk)(i) shows that a
promoter is a person "who constructs or causes
to be constructed an independent building
consisting of apartments for the purpose of
selling". Further, Section 2(zk)(v) also defines
the promoter as any other person who acts as a
builder, developer holding the power of attorney
from the owner of the land on which the
apartment is to be constructed.

(ii) "A Verbis Legis Non Est Recedendum"
which means "From the words of law there
must be no departure". The Court has to decide
on the footing that the legislature intended what
has been said in the Act. A statute is required to
be interpreted without doing any violence to the
language used therein. (Para 165)

J. Interpretation of statute - When a
definition used the word "means", it means
that such definition is hard and fast definition
and no other meaning can be assigned to the
expression than what is put down in the
definition. (Para 146)

Writ petitions allowed. (E-4)
Precedent followed:

1. M/s Singh Brother, Kanpur Nagar through
Partner & ors. Vs UPRERA Lucknow and 3
others, Writ-C No. 2928 of 2024 (Para 30)

2. St. of W.B. & ors. Vs Gitashree Dutta (Dey),
2022 SCC OnLine SC 691 (Para 32)

3.
Uttar
Pradesh
Power
Transmission
Corporation Ltd. & anr. Vs CG Power and
Industrial Solutions Ltd. & anr., (2021) 6 SCC 15
(Para 32)

4. Vaidehi Akash Housing (P) Ltd. Vs New D.N.
Nagar Co-Opposite Party, Housing Society Union
Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 5068 (Para 42)

5. Goregaon Pearl CHSL Vs Dr. Seema Mahadev
Paryekar & ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 3274
(Para 42)

6. Bhavnagar University Vs Palitana Sugar
Mill (P) Ltd. & ors., (2003) 2 SCC 111 (Para
51)

7. Sharif-Ud-Din Vs Abdul Gani Lone, (1980) 1
SCC 403 (Para 52)

8. Chandrakant Kolavale Vs Government of
Maharashtra & ors., 2003 SCC OnLine Bom 34
(Para 53)

9. St. of Bihar Vs Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank
Samiti, (2018) 9 SCC 472 (Para 54)

10. Vyas Narain Singh & ors. Vs The B.R.
Ambedkar Bihar University, (2006) SCC OnLine
Pat 461 (Para 54)

11. Commissioner of Income Tax Muzaffar
Nagar Authority, AIR 205 All 76 (FB)

12. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Raghuraji
Devi Foundation Trust, 2022 SCC OnLine All1
295 (Para 54)

13. Tata Chemicals Ld. Vs Commr. of Customs,
(2015) 11 SCC 628 (Para 55)

14. M/s Siemens Aktiengeselischaft and Siemens
Ltd. Vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & ors.,
(2014) 11 SCC 288 (Para 67)
10 All. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
961
15. Doiwala Sehkari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd.
Vs St. of Uttaranchal & ors., (2007) 11 SCC 641
(Para 108

16.
Kastha
Niwarak
Grahnirman
Sahakari
Sanstha Maryadit, Indore Vs President, Indore
Development, (2006) 2 SCC 604 (Para 109)

17. Mohd. Abdul Wahid Vs Nilopher & anr.,
(2024) 2 SCC 144 (Para 121)

18. Bachhaj Nahar Vs Nilima Mandal & anr.,
(2008) 17 SCC 491 (Para 121)

19.
P.
Kasilingam
Vs
P.S.G.
College
of
Technology, AIR 1995 SC 1395 (Para 146)

20. Punjab Land Development and Reclamation
Corp. Ltd. Chandigarh Vs Presiding Officer
Labour Court, Chandigarh, (1990) 3 SCC 682
(Para 146)

21. Kehar Singh Vs St. (Delhi Admn.), (1988) 3
SCC 609 (Para 162)

22. District Mining Officer Vs Tata Iron & Steel
Co., (2001) 7 SCC 358 (Para 163)

23. Hardeep Singh Vs St. of Pun. & ors., (2014)
3 SCC 92 (Para 165)

24. M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Vs
St. of U.P., (2021) 18 SCC 1 (Para 165)

25. Sarku Engineering Services & ors. Vs U.O.I.
& ors., AIR 2017 (NOC) 49 (Bom.) (Para 181)

26. S. Rangarajan VsP. Jagjiran Ram, (1989) 2
SCC 574 (Para 185)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra
Tripathi, J.
&
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Raghuvansh
Misra, Sri Shivang, Ms. Saloni Kapadia,
Sri Devansh Misra, Sri Anup Shukla, Sri
Asvani Tripathi and Sri Shubam Yadav,
Advocates appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Sri Mohd. Afzal and
Sri Rahul Agarwal, Advocates appearing
on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3-Uttar
Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority
and Sri R.M. Upadhyay, Ms. Uttara
Bahuguna, Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri
Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing
Counsel for State-respondent.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. Yamuna Expressway Industrial
Development Authority had granted a
concession
in
favour
of
Jaiprakash
Industries
Limited
vide
Concession
Agreement on 07.02.2003 whereby YEIDA
has agreed to transfer land admeasuring
2,50,00,000 square metres to Jaiprakash
Industries
Limited,
for
commercial,
amusement, industrial, institutional and
residential development, at five(5) or more
locations
alongside
the
Yamuna
Expressway. In furtherance of the same,
YEIDA executed various lease deeds in
favour of Jaiprakash Industries Limited for
a period of ninety(90) years spread out in
various sectors of Noida/Greater Noida
("Lease Deeds-I"). The said lease deeds
covered land measuring 248.6704 hectares
(614.00 acres) in Sectors 128, 131 and 133
at Noida thereon.

3. This Concession Agreement also
conferred
rights
in
favour
of
the
allottee/Jaiprakash Industries Limited to
transfer the whole or any part of the said
land, whether developed or undeveloped,
by way of plots or constructed properties,
or otherwise dispose of its interest in the
said land or part thereof to any person in
any manner whatsoever without requiring
any consent or approval of YEIDA or of
any other relevant authority.
962 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. Subsequent to the execution of the
Concession
Agreement,
Jaiprakash
Industries Limited got merged with Jaypee
Cement Limited by virtue of a scheme of
amalgamation and merger, which was
sanctioned by this Court vide order dated
March 10, 2004. Further, on March 11,
2004 the name of Jaypee Cement Limited
got changed to Jaiprakash Associates
Limited (JAL). By virtue of the same, all
rights, interest, entitlement, benefits and
obligations
of
Jaiprakash
Industries
Limited under the Concession Agreement
and the Lease Deeds-I came to be vested
with JAL.

5.
Thereafter,
in
terms
of
the
Concession Agreement, JAL incorporated a
Special Purpose Company (SPC)/Special
Purpose Vehicle, namely Jaypee Infratech
Limited for the implementation of the
Expressway project. All the rights and
obligations of JAL, under the Concession
Agreement and the Lease Deed-1 were
transferred/assigned to this SPC(JIL).

6. JIL prepared a layout plan including
the land use plan, road network plan,
landscape plan and area charts for the
development of 453 acres situated in
Sectors 128, 129, 131, 133, and 134 at
Noida. The same was initially sanctioned
on 31.10.2007. Subsequently, the said
layout plans were revised and the amended
plan was sanctioned on 23.03.2011. Yet
again, these layout plans were revised on
20.02.2015. The project now is known as
"Jaypee Greens Wish Town".

7. Thereafter, a registered Assignment
Agreement was entered on 31.07.2017
between JIL/JAL and the petitioner as the
developer, wherein the petitioner took over
the development rights in respect of the
Floor Area Ratio ("FAR") over a portion of
the Development Lands. JIL/JAL after
receiving ₹487.5 crores from the petitioner,
had executed an "Assignment Agreement"
on 31.07.2017.

8. In furtherance of the Assignment
Agreements, an irrevocable General Power
of Attorney, was executed on 31.07.2017
by JIL in favour of the petitioner.

9. On this land, the petitioner intended
to develop a project in the name of Green
Reserve, which comprises of 4 Towers,
Towers 1 & 2 were to be built on a plot of
12,394 square metres land bearing Group
Housing Pocket No.B-24A and Towers 3 &
4 were to be built on plot of 12,311 square
metres land bearing Group Housing Pocket
No..B-22B.

10. In order to develop the project on
02.06.2023,
the
petitioner
made
an
application under Section 4 of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development), Act,
2016 before the UPRERA for registration
of Towers 1 & 2 on the Development Land.
(Application No.1)

11. On 07.06.2023, UPRERA issued a
letter asking the petitioner to include JIL as a
'Promoter' for the project, since the approved
map and layout for the Developments Land
was in the name of JIL. Again on 08.06.2023,
UPRERA asked the petitioner to get a letter
from the Suraksha Consortium clarifying that
the Project Land do not form part of the
resolution plan of Suraksha Realtors Pvt.
Limited and Lakshdeep Investments and
Finance Private Limited, approved by the
Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal in
the corporate insolvency resolution process of
JIL.

12. On 12.06.2023, the petitioner
responded that they had legal, valid and
10 All. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
963
marketable rights in respect of the project
through
the
registered
GPAs
and
Assignments Deeds. It was submitted that
the petitioner (Larsen & Toubro Ltd.) has
the right to advertise, offer, book, sell,
dispose, assign, transfer, in any manner
whatsoever, the units of the Project along
with
the
sub-lease
of
proportionate
undivided interest in the Development
Land, in favour of the allottees, without the
prior consent of JIL/JAL, and for such
purposes
sign
and
execute
booking
application form, booking confirmationcum-allotment letter, agreement for sale,
sale deed to transfer title and all necessary
assurances, writings, letters, agreements
etc. (without the requirement of JIL
personally executing such documents), and
receive in its name all revenues, receivables
and consideration thereof. It was further
stated that the petitioner was not required to
add JIL as a 'Promoter' in the project.

13. In response thereto, UPRERA called
upon the petitioner to appear before it on
23.06.2023 and provide clarifications with
respect to the queries raised vide letter dated
08.06.2023. The petitioner appeared before
UPRERA on 23.06.2023 and provided the
requisite
clarifications/responses
to
the
queries raised by them, and also filed a letter
issued by the Implementation and Monitoring
Committee of JIL.

14. UPRERA, on technical grounds,
rejected the first application of the
petitioner on 06.07.2023 giving right to the
petitioner to re-apply for registration of
Towers 1 & 2 inter alia by providing the
following:

i. A copy of the Concession
Agreement,

ii. A confirmation on which party
will sign and execute the deed and which
party will be the confirming party in the
deed along-with the promoter to be
executed in favour of the homebuyer, and

iii. A confirmation on which party
will bear/pay the Farmer's additional
compensation as demanded by YEIDA.

15. On the request of the petitioner,
the
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Committee of JIL issued another letter
dated 20.07.2023 to UPRERA inter alia
making the following submissions:

(a) As per the various conditions
of
the
Assignment
Agreements,
the
Petitioner is entitled to develop the Project,
sale booking, allotment of the units and
flats in the Project.

(b) Further in terms of RERA Act
and the Assignment Agreements, the
Petitioner
shall
always
be
the
promoter/developer of the Project as all
rights to develop the said land, selling,
marketing, and advertising are of the
Petitioner only.

(c)
The
responsibility
with
respect to construction, quality and all
promises made to the allottees/home-buyer
shall be of the Petitioner only.

(d) JIL is only responsible to
execute
sub-lease
in
favour
of
allottees/homebuyers to whom the unit have
been
sold
by
the
Petitioner
as
developer/promoter for their impartible
and undivided share/rights in the Project
as per Clause 10.5 of the Assignment
Agreements.

(e) It is confirmed that in terms of
the agreements JIL's role and responsibility
shall only be of executing the Sub-Lease
Deed in favour of the allottees of the
Project for which JIL has also executed the
GPAs separately to enable the Petitioner to
execute Sub-Lease Deed as provided in
Clause 10.5 of the Assignment Agreements.
964 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(f) A sub-lease deed executed by
JIL in a similar case to an allottee of M/s.
Genx Estate LLP was enclosed. It was also
submitted that the said project named Golf
Street Hub was assigned to M/s. Genx
Estate LLP and the project is registered
with RERA vide registration No. UP RERA/
PRJ439474 ("Genx Estate LLP Project").

(g) It was also submitted that the
additional compensation with respect to the
Development Lands has already been paid
by the Petitioner to the Noida Authority
directly.

16. The petitioner re-applied for the
registration of Towers 1 & 2 with
UPRERA on 21.07.2023 and which was
uploaded on the portal of UPRERA on
31.07.2023("Application 3"), wherein the
petitioner provided all the clarifications
sought by UPRERA in the Rejection Letter
and
also
submitted
the
Assignment
Agreements and GPAs, and provided a
copy of the Conveyance Deed.

17. UPRERA, on 22.08.2023, once
again sought the same clarifications from
the petitioner as were sought earlier vide
letters 07.06.2023 and 08.06.2023. Yet
again, the petitioner gave the same
response to the queries put forth by
UPRERA and stated that the said rights,
interest, and obligations of the petitioner
are derived from clauses 2.1, 2.4, 2.6, 2.7,
3.3, 10.4, and 10.5 of the Assignment
Agreements, and clauses 24, 26, and 27 of
the GPAs.

18. UPRERA raised its objection on
22.08.2023 for Towers 1 & 2 and had noted
following defects in the application :

"1. The project land and the
approved map are not under the ownership
of the promoter M/s Larsen & Toubro
Limited-Add the land and map owner as the
promoter of the project.

2. The promoter should provide a
letter from M/s Suraksha Realtors Pvt. Ltd.
And M/s Lakshadeep Investment and
Finance Pvt. Ltd mentioning that the
project land B-24A, Jaypee wishtown
Sector-128 Noida do not come under the
Resolution Plan accepted by Hon'ble
NCLT and should upload the same on the
UPRERA project registration portal."

19. Thereafter, the petitioner applied
for the registration of Towers 3 & 4 with
UPRERA vide an application on the portal
of UPRERA dated 23.08.2023.

20. Thereafter, further notices were
sent by UPRERA to the petitioner on
02.09.2023 and 11.09.2023 qua Towers 1
& 2 asking the petitioner to appear before
the UPRERA and to submit response inter
alia as to why JIL has not been added as a
'Promoter' for Towers 1 & 2. In response
to it, the petitioner appeared before
UPRERA and submitted the same response
which was submitted earlier that JIL need
not be a promoter and all its rights have
been assigned over to the petitioner.
UPRERA still not being satisfied did not
grant the registration to the petitioner.

21. Petitioner issued a letter on
25.04.2024 stating that the applications
filed on 31.07.2023 and 23.08.2023 were
pending for more than 30 days, hence, as
per Section 5(1) and 5(2) of the RERA Act,
they are deemed to have been approved.
The applications are deemed to have been
registered on 30.08.2023 and 22.09.2023.
Hence, the registration numbers including a
login Id and password should have been
provided to the promoter/petitioner by
06.09.2023 for Towers 1 and 2 and by
29.09.2023 for Towers 3 & 4 for accessing
10 All. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
965
the website of the Authority and to create
its web page and to fill therein the details of
the proposed project.

22. It appears that some advertisement
was placed by a third person for the project
of the petitioner have a notice dated
08.05.2024 was issued by UPRERA stating
that the petitioner has violated Section 3 of
the RERA Act by advertising its Project on
the
website
'www.gaurnewyorkcityghaziabad.com',
while the Project was not registered and the
petitioner was called upon to provide an
explanation to UPRERA by May 23, 2024,
failing which action would be taken against
the petitioner under the RERA Act.

23. This notice dated 08.05.2024 has
been assailed by the petitioner by means of
the instant petition seeking inter alia the
following reliefs:-

"(i) issue writ, order or direction
in the nature of Certiorari, to call for the
records and proceedings pertaining to the
notice dated May 8, 2024 bearing no.
6687/Technical Cell- Media/2024-25 and
upon perusing the same, quash and set
aside the notice dated May 8, 2024 bearing
no. 6687/Technical Cell- Media/ 2024-25
(Annexure No. 1 to this petition) issued by
the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory
Authority to Larsen & Toubro Limited;

(ii) issue writ, order or direction
in the nature of Mandamus declaring that
the project of Larsen & Toubro Limited ie.
Green Reserve Towers 1, 2, 3, and 4 on
land admeasuring 12,311 square meters,
bearing Group Housing Pocket No. B-22B
and land admeasuring 12,394 square
meters or thereabouts bearing Group
Housing Pocket No. B-24A are deemed to
be registered under Section 5(2) of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,
2016;

(iii) issue writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus directing the
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory
Authority
to
provide
the
respective
registration numbers for the project of
Larsen & Toubro Limited Green Reserve
Towers 1, 2, 3, and 4 on land admeasuring
12,311 square meters, bearing Group
Housing Pocket No. B-22B; and land
admeasuring 12,394 square meters or
thereabouts bearing Group Housing Pocket
No.B-24A under Section 5(2) of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,
2016;"

24. On 17.05.2024, this Court has
passed the following order :-

"1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan and
Sri
Anurag
Khanna,
learned
senior
advocates assisted by Sri Raghuvansh
Misra and Ms. Saloni Kapadia, learned
counsels for the petitioner, Sri R.M.
Upadhayay,
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing Counsel for the State respondents
and Sri Rahul Agrawal and Sri Mohd.
Afzal, learned counsels for the contesting
respondent Nos.2 and 3 - Uttar Pradesh
Real
Estate
Reguatory
Authority
(UPRERA).

2. Sri Rahul Agrawal, learned
counsel for the contesting respondent Nos.2
and 3 - Uttar Pradesh Real Estate
Reguatory Authority (UPRERA) prays for
an adjourned on behalf of Sri Anil Tiwari,
learned Senior Advocate as he is ill and
admitted in P.G.I., Lucknow.

3. Matter is adjourned.

4. Put up this matter again as
fresh on 29.05.2024.

5. It is informed that two
simultaneous proceedings under Section
3/59 and Section 4 of the Real Estate
966 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016
(RERA Act) are ongoing against the
petitioner. So far as the proceeding under
Section 3/59 of the RERA Act is concerned,
the same entails imprisonment and penalty
and in case it is finalized on the next date
fixed, i.e. 23.05.2024, the petitioner would
suffer irreparable loss and injury even
though on the ground of medical exigency
the matter is adjourned. Suffice to indicate,
on the next date, the parties shall appear in
response to the impugned notice but no
final
decision
shall
be
taken
till
29.05.2024."

25. UPRERA filed a counter affidavit
on 28.05.2024, which was sworn on
27.05.2024, wherein it was stated that the
respondent has a preliminary objection
regarding maintainability of the present
writ petition on the ground that there exists
an equally efficacious alternative remedy
under Section 43(5) read with Section 44 of
the RERA Act, which provides that any
aggrieved person by any order or decision
or
direction
of
the
Authority
or
Adjudicating Officer, may prefer an appeal
to the Appellate Tribunal. Apart from it no
other ground was taken.

26. Thereafter, on 29.05.2024 this
Court passed the following order :-

"1. Counter affidavit filed by Sri
Rahul Agarwal and Mr. Mohd. Afzal on
behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 is taken
on record.

2. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan and
Sri
Anurag
Khanna,
learned
Senior
Counsels assisted by Sri Raghuvansh
Misra, learned counsel on behalf of the
petitioner, Mr. Mohd. Afzal, learned
counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and
Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Mr.
Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents.

3. On the request of learned
counsel for the petitioner, the matter is
passed over.

4.
Put
up
this
matter
on
31.05.2024 as fresh.

5. Interim order, if any, is
extended."

27. During pendency of case, the
application of the petitioner was rejected in
UPRERA's 147th Meeting on 16.05.2024,
which was communicated to the petitioner
on 29.06.2024.

28. It was then the petitioner preferred
an amendment application on 05.07.2024,
which was allowed. By means of the
amendment, following prayers were made
in the amended writ petition :-

"(i) issue writ, order or direction
in the nature of Certiorari, to call for the
records and proceedings pertaining to the
notice dated May 8, 2024 bearing no.
6687/Technical Cell- Media/ 2024-25 and
upon perusing the same, quash and set
aside the notice dated May 8, 2024 bearing
no. 6687/Technical Cell- Media/ 2024-25
(Annexure No. 1 to this petition) issued by
the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory
Authority to Larsen & Toubro Limited;

(ii) issue writ, order or direction
in the nature of Mandamus declaring that
the project of Larsen & Toubro Limited ie.
Green Reserve Towers 1, 2, 3, and 4 on
land admeasuring 12,311 square meters,
bearing Group Housing Pocket No. B-22B
and land admeasuring 12,394 square
meters or thereabouts bearing Group
Housing Pocket No. B-24A are deemed to
be registered under Section 5(2) of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,
2016;
10 All. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
967

(ii.1)
issue
writ,
order
or
direction in the nature of Certiorari, to call
for the records and proceedings pertaining
to the rejection letter dated June 29, 2024
bearing no. 9073/UPRERA/Projreg/202425 and upon perusing the same, quash and
set aside the rejection letter dated June 29,
2024
bearing
9073/UPRERA/Projreg/2024-25 (Annexure
No.39 to the present writ petition) issued by
the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory
Authority to Larsen & Toubro Limited;

(ii.2)
issue
writ,
order
or
direction in the nature of Certiorari, to call
for the records and proceedings pertaining
to the rejection letter dated June 29, 2024
bearing no. 9053/UPRERA/Projreg/212425 and upon perusing the same, quash and
set aside the rejection letter dated June 29.
2024
bearing
9053/UPRERA/Projreg/2024-25 (Annexure
No. 40 to the present writ petition) issued
by
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Real
Estate
Regulatory Authority to Larsen & Toubro
Limited;

(iii) issue writ, order or direction
in the nature of Mandamus directing the
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory
Authority
to
provide
the
respective
registration numbers for the project of
Larsen & Toubro Limited Green Reserve
Towers 1, 2, 3, and 4 on land admeasuring
12,311 square meters, bearing Group
Housing Pocket No. B-22B; and land
admeasuring 12,394 square meters or
thereabouts bearing Group Housing Pocket
No. B-24A under Section 5(2) of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,
2016;"

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OF
RESPONDENTS

29. During the course of hearing a
preliminary objection was raised by learned
Senior Counsel appearing for respondent
nos.2 and 3-UPRERA on the ground of
availability of alternative remedy. He has
cited a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court passed in the matter of Assistant
Commissioner Sales Tax and others vs.
Commercial Steel Ltd. wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:-

"11. The respondent had a
statutory
remedy
under
section
107.
Instead of availing of the remedy, the
respondent instituted a petition under
Article 226. The existence of an alternate
remedy is not an absolute bar to the
maintainability of a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution. But a writ
petition can be entertained in exceptional
circumstances where there is:

(i) a breach of fundamental
rights;

(ii) a violation of the principles of
natural justices;

(iii) an excess of jurisdiction; or

(iv) a challenge to the vires of the
statute or delegated legislation."

30. In addition, in the case of M/s
Singh Brother, Kanpur Nagar through,
Partner & 7 others versus UPRERA,
Lko. & 3 others in Writ-C No.2928 of
2024, the Lucknow Bench of this Hon'ble
Court has held that writ petition is not
maintainable in cases where there exists an
alternative remedy.

31. It was submitted that, moreover,
the petitioner does not fall within the ambit
of the exceptions carved out by the Apex
Court in cases where an alternative remedy
is available and hence, the writ petition is
liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
He further submitted that since the
authority has passed the rejection order in
exercise of its jurisdiction and not in excess
968 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of jurisdiction thus the petitioner fails to
satisfy the requirement of law as laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the remedy
is, therefore, before the appellate tribunal.

32. In response to it, learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that in the
instant matter, UPRERA has passed an
order of rejection, when the application of
the petitioner has been deemed to have
been allowed. He submitted that after
deeming provision has come into play,
UPRERA had no jurisdiction to pass any
such order, hence, it is a case of an "excess
of jurisdiction". Since it is a case of an
"excess of jurisdiction", it definitely falls
within the third category of the judgment
cited by learned counsel for the respondent.
As such, the instant writ petition cannot be
dismissed on the ground of alternative
remedy. To buttress his argument, he has
relied on judgments passed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of State of
West Bengal and others vs. Gitashree
Dutta (Dey) and Uttar Pradesh Power
Transmission Corporation Ltd. and
another vs. CG Power and Industrial
Solutions Limited and another.

CONSIDERATION
ON
PRELIMINARY OF OBJECTION

33. After hearing the parties at length
for couple of days, specially, the parties
have argued and advanced all the legal
issues, and specially in the light of
paragraph no.11 (iii) of the judgement of
Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the matter of
Assistant Commissioner Sales Tax and
others (supra), which provides that a writ
petition can be entertained in exceptional
circumstances where there is an excess of
jurisdiction, therefore, it will be a futile
exercise to relegate the matter to the
appellate authority.

34.
Therefore,
we
are
of
the
considered opinion that the instant writ
petition cannot be dismissed on the ground
of alternative remedy, and it has to be
adjudicated on merits.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
THE PETITIONER

35.
Sri
Shashi
Nandan,
Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Raghuvansh
Misra, Sri Shivang, Ms. Saloni Kapadia,
Sri Devansh Misra, Sri Anup Shukla, Sri
Asvani Tripathi and Sri Shubam Yadav,
Advocates appearing on behalf of the
petitioner advanced his arguments. The
argument of the petitioner is on the
following points:-

OBJECTS
OF
THE
REAL
ESTATE
(REGULATION
&
DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 2016

36. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the statement and objects of the RERA Act
was primarily to protect the interest of the
flat buyers/addressees. For ready reference
relevant provision of the statement of
objects and reasons of RERA Act is being
quoted below:-

"The Real Estate (Regulation and
Development)
Bill,
2013,
inter
alia,
provides for the following, namely:-