# Larsen & Toubro Ltd v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 749 - **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-54689 - **Pages:** 58 ## Headnote 750 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Real Estate(Regulation and Development) Act,2016-Section 5(2)-The petitioner acquired development rights for a project in Jaypee Greens Wish Town,Noida through Assignment agreements-UPRERA rejected the petitioner's application for project registration, citing procedural defects, including the omission of JIL as a copromoter-The petitioner claimed deemed registration u/s 5(2) of the Act,2016 due to UPRERA's failure to decide within the statutory 30 day period-Held, the court found that UPRERA's failure to act within 30 days triggered the deeming provision u/s 5(2) of the Act-Hence, rejection after deemed approval was impermissible-The writ petition is maintainable as UPRERA's actions constituted an excess of jurisdiction-UPRERA's inconsistent treatment of similarly situated developers evidenced a "pick and choose" policy, violating principles of fairness-The court quashed the rejection orders and notices issued by UPRERA and directed it to provide the petitioner with the necessary registration details for its project.(Para 1 to 186) The writ petition is allowed. (E-6) List of Cases cited: ## Text _Characters 0–39,873 of 185,791. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39873 for what follows._ 9 All. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 749 conducted so as to ascertain the facts alleged in the complaint, it cannot be said that the petitioner is adversely affected at this stage. 8. This Court is of the considered opinion that whenever there are allegations of defalcation or misappropriation of the State fund, it is the bounden duty of the authorities concerned to immediately look into the complaint at the earliest to test the veracity of the said complaint. At this stage, no right of any individual is affected and only limited inquiry is conducted to verify the facts as mentioned in the complaint. It is only when the allegations is fount to be prima facie true then the proceedings can be initiated for taking action against the person responsible for defalcation of fund or misappropriation of State fund for which purposes due inquiry is to be conducted and in the present case, detailed procedure has also been prescribed under Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act of 1947 9. May be in case, two other inquiries by two other authorities have independently been conducted they would not have any bearing in the present inquiry to be conducted under Section 95 (1) (g) where District Magistrate will have to consider the reports as submitted by District Social Welfare Officer and in case he finds that there is some material fact he shall proceed further in the matter and in case the allegations in the complaint are not verified then he would be at liberty to drop the proceedings. At this preliminary stage, the Court cannot interfere on the ground that preliminary inquiry is sought to be conducted and previously also other authorities have conducted two other inquiries. 10. In any view of the matter District Magistrate is bound by the statutory provisions under Section 95 (1) (g) where there is no prescription of taking into account of the said inquiries submitted by other authorizes. 11. In proceedings under the said Sections the petitioner will have full opportunity to defend himself and in case it is found that there is prima facie substance in the complaint made by the complainant for which purposes the District Magistrate will be bound by the procedure prescribed under the Act of 1947 and it is only after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner that he would proceed further in the matter and when that stage is reached the petitioner will have full opportunity to defend himself and adduce all the material available whit him before the authorities. 12. In light of the above, no interference is called for by this Court. The petition being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed. ---------- (2024) 9 ILRA 749 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. Adv.) Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Mohd. Afzal, Rahul Agarwal 750 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Real Estate(Regulation and Development) Act,2016-Section 5(2)-The petitioner acquired development rights for a project in Jaypee Greens Wish Town,Noida through Assignment agreements-UPRERA rejected the petitioner's application for project registration, citing procedural defects, including the omission of JIL as a copromoter-The petitioner claimed deemed registration u/s 5(2) of the Act,2016 due to UPRERA's failure to decide within the statutory 30 day period-Held, the court found that UPRERA's failure to act within 30 days triggered the deeming provision u/s 5(2) of the Act-Hence, rejection after deemed approval was impermissible-The writ petition is maintainable as UPRERA's actions constituted an excess of jurisdiction-UPRERA's inconsistent treatment of similarly situated developers evidenced a "pick and choose" policy, violating principles of fairness-The court quashed the rejection orders and notices issued by UPRERA and directed it to provide the petitioner with the necessary registration details for its project.(Para 1 to 186) The writ petition is allowed. (E-6) List of Cases cited: 1. Astt. Commr. Sales Tax & ors. . Vs Commercial Steel Ltd.(2021) SCC OnLine SC 884 2. M/s Singh Brother, Kan. Nagar thru, Partner & 7 Ors Vs UPRERA, LKO & ors. ., Writ-C No. 2928 of 2024 3. St. of W.B. & ors. . Vs. Gitashree Dutta(Dey)(2022) SCC Online SC 691 4. U.P Power Transm. Corpn Ltd. & anr. Vs CG Power & Indus. Solutions ltd & anr. (2021) 6 SCC 15 5. Vaidehi Akash housing (P) Ltd Vs New D.N Nagar Co-op. Housing Socy. Union Ltd. (2014) SCC OnLine Bom 5068 6. Goregaon Pearl CHSL Vs Dr. Seema Mahadev Paryekar & ors. .(2019) SCC Online Bom 3274 7. Bhavngar Univ. Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. & ors. (2003) 2 SCC 111 8. Sharif-UD -din Vs Abdul Gani Lone(1980) 1 SCC 403 9. Chandrakant Kolavale Vs Govt of Mah. & ors. (2003) SCC Online Bom 34 10. St. of Bih. & ors. . Vs Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti(2018) 9 SCC 472 11. Vyas Narain Singh & ors. . Vs The B.R Ambedkar Bih. Univ.((2006) SCC Online Pat 461 12. Commr.Income Tax Vs Muzaffar Nagar Authority(2015) AIR All 76 FB 13. Commr.Income Tax Vs Raghuragi Devi Foundation Trust (2022) SCC Online All 1295 14. Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs Commr. of Custom(2015) 11 SCC 628 15. M/s Siemens Aktingeselischaft & Siemens Ltd Vs Delhi Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd.& ors. .(2014) 11 SCC 288 16. Sarku Engr. Services & ors. . Vs U.O.I. & ors. (2017) AIR NOC 49 Bom 17. Doiwala Sehkari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd. Vs St. of U.K. & ors. (2007) 11 SCC 641 18. U.O.I. & anr.Vs. International Trading Co. & anr..(2003) 5 SCC 437 19. Kastha Niwarak Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore Vs President, Indore Development.(2006) 2 SCC 604 20. Mohd. Abdul Wahid Vs Nilopher & anr.(2024) 2 SCC 144 21. Bachhaj Nahar Vs Nitima Mandal & anr..(2008) 17 SCC 491 22. P. Kasilingam Vs P.S.G. College of Tech.(1995) AIR SC 1395 9 All. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 751 23. Punj. Land Development & Reclamation Corpn. Ltd Chandigarh Vs P.O., Labour court, Chandigarh(1990)3 SCC 682 24. Kehar Singh Vs St.(Delhi Admn)(1988)3 SCC 609 25. Distt.Mining Officer Vs Tata Iron & Steel Co.(2001) 7 SCC 358 26. Hardeep Singh Vs St. of Punj. & ors. . (2014) 3 SCC 92 27. M/s Newtech Promters & Developers Vs St. of U.P.(2021) 18 SCC 1 (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 Authority1 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 Authority2 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. 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 752 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Purpose Vehicle, namely Jaypee Infratech Limited3 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 Ratio4 ("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 Attorney5, 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, 20166 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 Tribunal7 in the corporate insolvency resolution process of JIL. 12. On 12.06.2023, the petitioner responded that they had legal, valid and 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 9 All. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 753 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/homebuyer 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. (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 754 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 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 the website of the Authority and to create its web 9 All. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 755 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 756 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 9 All. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 757 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; (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.8 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 758 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 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 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)9 and Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. and another vs. CG Power and Industrial Solutions Limited and another10. 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:- 9 All. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 759 "(a) to impose an obligation upon the promoter not to book, sell or offer for sale, or invite persons to purchase any plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, in any real estate project without registering the real estate project with the Authority; .................... (d) to impose liability upon the promoter to pay such compensation to the allottees, in the manner as provided under the proposed legislation, in case if he fails to discharge any obligations imposed on him under the proposed legislation; (e) to establish an Authority to be known as the Real Estate Regulatory Authority by the appropriate Government, to exercise the powers conferred on it and to perform the functions assigned to it under the proposed legislation; (f) the functions of the Authority shall, inter alia, include-(i) to render advice to the appropriate Government in matters relating to the development of real estate sector; (ii) to publish and maintain a website of records of all real estate projects for which registration has been given, with such details as may be prescribed; (iii) to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under the proposed legislation; .................... (1) to make provision for punishment and penalties for contravention of the provisions of the proposed legislation and for non-compliance of orders of Authority or Appellate Tribunal; ................... 37. In Clause (d) of the statement of objects and reasons, it is specifically mentioned that UPRERA is established to impose liability on the promoter to pay compensation to the allottees, in case, if he fails to discharge its obligations imposed on him under the RERA Act. He further submitted that at best UPRERA while registering the project has only to see whether the developer has clear title, free from all encumbrances and whatever he does, has to be transparently shown on the website of the Authority. The Authority can only ensure timely development of the project and in case the same is not done, the promoter can be penalised for the same. PROMOTER 38. The counsel for the petitioner emphasized that the petitioner is a "Promoter" as per the definition provided under Section 2(zk) of the RERA Act. Section 2(zk) is being reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- 2(zk) "promoter" means,- (i) a person who constructs or causes to be constructed an independent building or a building consisting of apartments, or converts an existing building or a part thereof into apartments, for the purpose of selling all or some of the apartments to other persons and includes his assignees; or (ii) a person who develops land into a project, whether or not the person also constructs structures on any of the plots, for the purpose of selling to other persons all or some of the plots in the said 760 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES project, whether with or without structures thereon; or (iii) any development authority or any other public body in respect of allottees of- (a) buildings or apartments, as the case may be, constructed by such authority or body on lands owned by them or placed at their disposal by the Government; or (b) plots owned by such authority or body or placed at their disposal by Government, for the purpose of selling all or some of the apartments or plots; or (iv) an apex State level cooperative housing finance society and a primary co-operative housing society which constructs apartments or buildings for its Members or in respect of the allottees of such apartments or buildings; or (v) any other person who acts himself as a builder, coloniser, contractor, developer, estate developer or by any other name or claims to be acting as the holder of a power of attorney from the owner of the land on which the building or apartment is constructed or plot is developed for sale; or (vi) such other person who constructs any building or apartment for sale to the general public. Explanation.-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 person, 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;" 39. Section 2(zk) of the RERA Act, which defines 'promoter', states that a person who has been assigned development rights in respect of a project for the purpose of selling the apartments, a power of attorney holder, or a person who develops land as a project for the purpose of selling (all being petitioner in this case), would qualify as being a 'promoter'. In this backdrop, he submits that the RERA Act does not mandate, landowner to be a promoter, as the definition of 'promoter' does not include 'owner'. 40. The learned Senior Counsel elaborated that as per the definition, a promoter is a person, who constructs 'OR' causes to be constructed. Here, the definition uses the words "OR" and not "AND" while defining promoter and hence, an owner can be a 'Promoter' if he is developing himself or anyone who is building on his land after a proper agreement can be a 'Promoter'. 41. He next submitted that JIL does not fall under the provisions of Section 2(zk) of the RERA Act. Respondent has failed to identify a single provision under the RERA Act or the Rules and Regulations thereunder for justifying their action to include JIL as a promoter for the Project. UPRERA is seeking to expand the scope of a clear and unambiguous section 2(zk), which is impermissible. In the event, the intention is to include 9 All. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 761 landowners then appropriate amendments will have to be brought in the RERA Act. 42. The learned Senior Counsel vehemently submitted that it is settled that merely being the owner of a land would not make the party a promoter and ought not to suffer the consequences of being a promoter, and further it is not correct to say that a land owner ought to be a promoter on the premise that he is providing his land for the project. It is clarified that only the promoter is one, who is responsible for constructing the project or can cause it to be constructed. He has placed reliance on Rajasthan RERA Notification No. F.1(152)RJ/RERA/LAND/2020/1202 dated June 30, 2020, Vaidehi Akash Housing (P) Ltd. v. New D.N. Nagar Coop. Housing Society Union Ltd.11, Goregaon Pearl CHSL vs. Dr. Seema Mahadev Paryekar and Others12. 43. He further submitted that Rule 3(1)(f) of the U.P. Real Estate(Regulation and Development) Rules, 201613 is as follows: "3.(1)(f) where the promoter is not the owner of the land on which development is proposed details of the consent of the owner of the land along with a copy of the collaboration agreement, development agreement, joint development agreement or any other agreement, as the case may be, entered into between the promoter and such owner and copies of title and other documents reflecting the title of such owner on the land proposed to be developed." 44. With reference to Rule 3(1)(f) learned Senior Advocate specifically stated that where the promoter is not the owner of the land which is being developed, the consent of the owner should be included when applying for registration. The forms annexed to The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement For Sale/Lease) Rules, 201814 and Circular dated 16.03.2024 of UPRERA also contemplate a situation where the promoter is not the landowner. Hence, the Act and Rules framed thereunder clearly contemplates, both, the one who owns the land and construct, and the other, who constructs on someone else's and sells the apartments after executing a proper agreement by the owner, both of them would independently be the promoter. 45. He further raised objection that without prejudice to the above, it is admitted that it is YEIDA and not JIL which is the owner of the land and UPRERA has never insisted on making YEIDA a promoter and hence it cannot insist on making JIL a promoter. 46. He lastly relied on the letters dated June 9, 2023, July 20, 2023 and October 18, 2024 issued by the JIL wherein it has been stated that all rights in the Project are with the petitioner, who is the sole promoter and are in a position to meet all the obligations of the promoter. Hence, the objection of UPRERA is illegal and misplaced. SECTION 4 OF RERA ACT (APPLICATION BY THE PROMOTER 47. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Section 4 of RERA Act deals with application for registration of real estate projects. For ready reference Section 4 of RERA Act is reproduced herein:- (a) a brief details of his enterprise including its name, registered address, type of enterprise (proprietorship, 762 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES societies, partnership, companies, competent authority), and the particulars of registration, and the names and photographs of the promoter;