# M/s Gaursons India Ltd., New Delhi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 443
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-30
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 8018 of 2022
- **Bench:** Pritinker Diwaker, Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-gaursons-india-ltd-new-delhi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47741
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Local body - GO dated 05.12.2019 -
Zero period benefit - Entitlement - Plot
was allotted, but due to non-construction
of the approach road and non-approval of
the revised layout plan, the development
over the allotted plot could not be carried
out - Authority refused to grant zero
period benefit - Legality challenged -
Held, once the GO dated 05.12.2019 was
in existence, the claim of the petitioner
was required to be considered in terms of
the parameters laid down it - Rejection of
the claim of the petitioner for grant of
zero period benefit by the impugned order
was held wholly unjustified and the
petitioner was held entitled for grant of
zero period benefit. (Para 10)
Writ petition partly allowed. (E-1)

## Text

10 All. M/s Gaursons India Ltd., New Delhi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
443
(2022) 10 ILRA 443
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-C No. 8018 of 2022

M/s Gaursons India Ltd., New Delhi
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Sri Nikhil Agrawal

Counsel for the Respondents:

A. Local body - GO dated 05.12.2019 -
Zero period benefit - Entitlement - Plot
was allotted, but due to non-construction
of the approach road and non-approval of
the revised layout plan, the development
over the allotted plot could not be carried
out - Authority refused to grant zero
period benefit - Legality challenged -
Held, once the GO dated 05.12.2019 was
in existence, the claim of the petitioner
was required to be considered in terms of
the parameters laid down it - Rejection of
the claim of the petitioner for grant of
zero period benefit by the impugned order
was held wholly unjustified and the
petitioner was held entitled for grant of
zero period benefit. (Para 10)
Writ petition partly allowed. (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker, J.
& Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

1. Sri Nikhil Agarwal, learned counsel
for the petitioner, Smt. Anjali Upadhyay,
learned counsel for the Respondent No.2, 3
& 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the
State respondents.

2. The writ petitioner which is a
Company
incorporated
under
the
Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the
business of real estate and development of
integrated township, construction and sale
of flats etc. is aggrieved by the order dated
23.12.2019 passed by the Additional Chief
Executive Officer, Greater Noida Industrial
Development
Authority,
whereby
and
whereunder the claim of the petitioner for
grant of the zero period benefit from the
date of allotment dated 25.04.2011 till the
date of passing of revised layout plan in
respect of FH-02, Agricultural Green,
Grater Noida is passed by the Respondent
Authority has been rejected. Several other
prayers have been made in the writ petition.

3. It is contended on behalf of the
petitioner that the Greater Noida floated a
scheme on 11.01.2011 for allotment of
large group housing/ builders residential
plots in which the minimum reserve price
of Rs.2600/- per sq. meter was fixed. The
bid of the petitioner was accepted @
Rs.2785/- per sq. meter and land admeasuring 404879 sq. meter was allotted in
favour of the petitioner vide allotment letter
dated 25.04.2011. A lease deed was
executed on 03.11.2012 for a consideration
of
Rs.112,73,68,000/-
payable
in
12
installments as per the schedule mentioned
in the lease deed. The petitioner was
handed over possession of 4,01,710.41 sq.
meters of the land out of 4,04,879 sq.
meters and balance land of 3168501 sq.
meters was to be handed over later. On
getting the possession of the land the
petitioner submitted a layout plan which
was duly approved by the Competent
Authority. The plot allotted to the petitioner
was not free from encroachment and was
hampering the development work in as
much as the land was still occupied by the
villagers, there was a public road in the
444 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
middle of the plot which was still being
used by villagers. The petitioner submitted
a revised lease plan and also requested the
authority for declaration of zero period
form the date of allotment i.e. 25.04.2011
to the date of approval of the revised lease
plan and adjust the amount paid by the
petitioner
till
that
date
against
the
outstanding principal amount and issue a
new payment plan for future installments to
be paid by the petitioner. It is further
contended that the petitioner requested for
issuance of revised lease plan. The
Development
Authority
executed
two
supplementary lease deeds on 04.12.2015
and 13.01.2017 whereafter the petitioner
vide letter dated 23.01.2017 submitted
building
plans
and
other
required
documents for approval of revised sanction
of the layout plan upon Plot No. FH-02
Sector Agricultural but no decision upon
the revised layout plan submitted has been
taken. On account of non-construction of
approach road and non approval of revised
layout plan submitted the petitioner could
not
carry
out
any
development
or
construction actively upon the leased plot.

4. It is next contended that the Respondent
Authority in its Board Meeting held on
24.12.2016 (107th Board Meeting) took a
decision to grant zero period benefit to the
allottees amongst other grounds on the
ground that if the authority has delivered
possession to the allottee and lease deed
was executed but the allottee is unable to
access the plot as a result of which
development is impossible to commence,
the allottee is entitled to the benefit of zero
benefit upto the date on which the alternate
access is provided. The Authority did not
extend the benefit of zero period to the
petitioner even though it stood covered by
it. The petitioner approached this Hon'ble
Court my means of Writ (C) No.21878 of
2018 which was disposed of vide order
dated 21.06.2018 directing the authority to
decide the representation of the petitioner
in accordance with law and the policy
decision taken in the 104th Board Meeting
dated 14.03.2016 by a reasoned and
speaking order. In compliance of the order
of this Court dated 21.06.2018 though the
petitioner had to invoke the contempt
jurisdiction of this Court to ensure its
compliance, the Respondent Authority on
grounds untenable in law has now rejected
the representation of the petitioner by order
dated 23.12.2019 harbouring under an
erroneous assumption that the petitioner
was not entitled to the benefit of zero
period as the petitioner had possession of
the plot ignoring that there was continuous
hindrance created by farmers upon the land
and also the approach road was not
constructed which led to undue hardship to
the petitioner as it could not commence
construction on the affected area. It is thus
submitted that the denial of the benefit of
zero period, as claimed by the petitioner is
unjustified, particularly, in view of the fact
that in similar circumstances the benefit of
zero period was extended to M/s Rajhans
Infratech Pvt. Ltd. writ petitioner of Writ
(C) No.12462 of 2020 but the petitioner
was denied the benefit.

5. Smt. Anjali Upadhyay, learned counsel
representing the Respondent Authority has
filed counter affidavit on behalf the
Respondents No.2, 3 & 4. In the counter
affidavit, it has been averred that the
petitioner was allotted Plot No. FH-02,
Agriculture Green, Greater Noida, with
area of 40,4800 sq. meter at the rate of
Rs.2785/- per sq. meter on 25.04.2011. As
per the allotment letter, 10% of the
premium of the plot i.e. Rs.11,27,36,800/-
was to be deposited within 60 days apart
from
the
reservation
money
of
10 All. M/s Gaursons India Ltd., New Delhi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
445
Rs.6,27,36,800/- which had already been
deposited. The remaining 80% of the
premium of the plot was to be deposited
with an interest of 13% per annum in 12
half
yearly
equal
installments.
On
02.11.2012 lease deed in respect of an area
of 4,01,710.41 sq. meter was executed and
it was mentioned that area of 3168.59 sq.
meters
would
be
allotted
later.
On
27.09.2016, a revised lease plan of 40,4879
sq. meters was again issued which
mentioned that the lease plan would be
subject to orders passed in Writ Petition
No.12300 of 2010, Writ Petition No.12303
of 2010, Writ Petition No.32438 of 2012.
Subsequently, a supplementary lease deed
was executed. The benefit of zero period
was to be considered as per the approved
proposal in Item No.103/2014 of the 103rd
Board Meeting of the Authority. The
counter affidavit states that the policy
approved in the 103rd Board Meeting was
not effective and hence the matter could not
be settled under this policy. The counter
affidavit further states that the zero period
benefit was allowed for 21.10.2011 to
24.08.2012 as per earlier decision as the
allottees plot being in a village other than
village Patwari. The petitioner's project
falls in village Bisrikh and no ground was
found for obstructing the work by farmers
on the land of Bisrikh falling under the
petitioner's project and the petitioner has
undisputed possession of 404879 sq. meters
of
the
allotted
land.
The
Project
Department Report has found that the 18
meter road has been included in the layout
approved by the Planning Department and
the contention of the petitioner that the 18
meter road has been taken out from the
middle of the plot is incorrect. The
petitioner has physical possession of entire
plot and the sub lease deed has also been
done by the petitioner for the aforesaid
plot. In such view of the matter, the benefit
of zero period has been allowed from
21.10.2011 to 24.08.2012 only.

6. In the rejoinder affidavit, the
petitioner has controverted the stand of the
Respondent Authority taken in the counter
affidavit. The petitioner submits that in
view of the stand of the Respondent
Authority in para 8 of the counter affidavit,
the case of the petitioner is established
beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner
could not have commenced any activity
upon the leased land in view of the
admission of the respondents that on
27.09.2016 a revised leased plan of
40,4879 sq. meters was issued by the
Project Department where it was mentioned
that the lease plan would be subject to High
Court order in Writ Petition No.2300 of
2010, Writ Petition No.12303 of 2010 and
Writ Petition No.32438 of 2012. A
supplementary lease deed was executed in
favour of petitioner on 09.01.2017 wherein
it has been stated that due to revision in the
sector layout plan of Sector Agricultural
Greens 18 meter wide road has been
incorporated to facilitate the villagers of
Bisrakh to reach their cremation grounds
straight from the community centre side
village road resulting in the execution of
the revised lease plan to be executed which
has been made subject to the outcome of
the writ petitions. The petitioner has been
constantly requesting the Authority to
remove the obstruction caused by the
villagers in commencing actively upon the
leased land as ins evident from letters dated
01.11.2013 and 0.08.2014. It is also stated
that the State Government vide its order
dated 05.12.2019 has evolved the policy for
grant
of
zero
period
benefit.
The
Government Order dated 05.12.2019 has
been duly adopted by the Respondent
Authority in its 117th Board Meeting and
an Officer Order dated 03.03.2010 has been
446 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
issued. The zero period benefit is required
to be given on the parameters laid down
under the Officer Order dated 03.03.2020.
The respondents are erroneously referring
to and relying upon 103rd Board Meeting
whereas the Court clearly mentioned 104th
Board
Meeting.
However,
now
the
Respondent Authority has issued the Office
Order dated 03.03.2020 regarding grant of
zero period benefit which itself is base on
the Government Order dated 05.12.2019
the claim of the petitioner was liable to be
considered in terms of the Government
Order date 05.12.2019. The rejection of the
claim vide the impugned order dated
23.12.2019 subsequent to the issue of the
Government Order dated 05.12.2019 is thus
vitiated.

7. This Court in view of the above
factual background is required to examine
as to whether the consideration of the zero
period benefit by the impugned order dated
23.12.2019 is justified or the same is liable
to be interfered in exercise of powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. A perusal of the impugned order dated
23.12.2019 passed by the Additional Chief
Executive Officer, Greater Noida Industrial
Development Authority reveals that the
petitioner was allotted Plot No.FH-2 area
404879 sq. meters on 25.04.2011 but lease
deed of only an area of 401710.41 sq.
meters was got executed on 02.11.2012.
Lease of an area of 3168.59 sq. meters was
admittedly not got executed. The petitioner
soon after execution of the lease deed dated
02.11.2012 appraised the Authority on
09.11.2013 annexing on site photographs
that the plot allotted was not free from
encroachments of farmers who were
preventing the petitioner to construct
boundary wall. A supplementary lease deed
dated 04.12.2015 was got executed in
respect of balance area of 3168.59 sq.
meters. On 27.09.2016 a fresh modified
lease plan was issued by the Authority
which was subject to the outcome of Writ
Petition No.12300 of 2010, Writ Petition
No.12303 of 2010 and Writ Petition
No.32438 of 2012. A fresh lease deed dated
09.01.2017
was
got
executed
which
mentioned a 18 meters road across the plot
allotted. The impugned order further
records that the claim of the petitioner for
grant of the zero period benefit was to be
considered in terms of the direction of the
Court dated 21.06.2018 passed in Writ
Petition No.21878 of 2018 according to the
prevailing policy of the Authority but the
same has not been done.

9. We find that the Authority has
proceeded to consider the claim of the
petitioner on the basis of the agenda
No.103/14 in the 103rd Board Meeting
even though the direction in the writ
petition No. 21878 of 2018 was to decide
as per the policy decision taken in 104th
Board Meeting held on 14.03.2014. In fact
the authority has proceeded to hold that the
claim of the petitioner for grant of the zero
period benefit cannot be considered as the
policy under the 103rd meeting was not
approved by the Government and thus was
not effective and the claim is to be
considered as per the prevailing policy.
However, we find that the authority has not
accorded consideration of the claim of the
petitioner as per the prevailing policy for
grant of zero period benefit rather has
proceeded to reject the claim by holding
that the claim cannot be considered under
the policy under the 103rd Board Meeting.
Thus the action of the Development
Authority is not in accordance with law.

10. This Court further finds that when
the claim of the petitioner for zero period
10 All. Sohan Lal Sharma Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
447
benefit was pending consideration, the State
Government issued Government Order dated
05.12.2019 laying down the parameters for
grant of the zero period benefit. The said
Government Order was adopted by the
authority. Once the Government Order dated
05.12.2019 was in existence, the claim of the
petitioner was required to be considered in
terms of the parameters laid down in the
Government Order dated 05.12.2019. We
also take note of the fact that subsequently
the authority has issued an office order dated
03.03.2020 adopting the Government Order
dated 05.12.2019. This being so, we are of
the view that the rejection of the claim of the
petitioner for grant of zero period benefit by
the impugned order dated 23.12.2019 is
wholly unjustified and the petitioner is
entitled for grant of zero period benefit.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is
partly allowed and the impugned order dated
23.12.2019 rejecting the claim of the
petitioner for grant of zero period benefit is
set aside. It is held that the petitioner is
entitled for grant of zero period benefit from
the date of allotment, i.e. 25.04.2011 to till
date. The respondents-Authority are also
directed to consider the sanctioning of the
revised
layout
plan
regarding
FH-02,
Agricultural
Green, Greater Noida, in
accordance
with
law
considering
the
observations made herein-above.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 447
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-C No. 12611 of 2022

Sohan Lal Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ranjeet Asthana

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Satyendra Pandey

A. Civil law - Temple property - Status -
Title claimed by the successors of Pujari -
Duty
of
Shebait/manager
and
its
successor defined - The Deity 'Sri Thakur
Radhamohan Ji Maharaj Virajmaan Mandir
Mohalla Baag Agar Bihari Vrindavan' as
the owner of the land, in question was
found proved as per the revenue record -
Held, the petitioner has no right, title or
interest in deity - It is bounden duty of
Shebait or Manager to protect the temple
property. He cannot usurp such property
for his own gains - If a Pujari or Manager
claims proprietary rights over the property
of
temple,
then
it
is
an
act
of
mismanagement. (Para 8, 11 and 12)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Meghmala Vs G. Narasimha Reddy, (2010) 8
SCC 383
2.
Bishwanath
&
anr.
Vs
Shri
Thakur
Radhaballabhji & ors; AIR 1967 SC 1044
3.
Sri
Ganapathi
Dev
Temple
Trust
Vs
Balakrishna Bhat (D) Thr. Lrs.; (2019) 9 SCC
495
4. St. of M.P. Vs Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan
Samiti, (2021) 10 SCC 222
(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J. & Hon'ble Saurabh
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ranjeet Asthana,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Amit Kumar Singh, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.