# M/s Logix Infomedia (P) Ltd. Hapur v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 1240
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-01
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 18969 of 2021
- **Bench:** Manoj Misra, Jayant Banerji
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-logix-infomedia-p-ltd-hapur-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47375
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, (6
of
1976)
-
U.P.
Industrial
Area
Development (Amendment) Act, 2020 -
(U.P.
Act
No.
25
of
2020)
w.e.f.
28.07.2020
-
Section
7
Proviso
-
Cancellation of allotment, if the land not
used for the purpose for which it was
allotted within a period of one year - inter
play of the two parts of the proviso to
Section 7 - under the first part of the
proviso the lease deed stands cancelled
where the land allotted is not utilized for
the purpose for which it was allotted
within the period of five years from the
date of possession or within the period
fixed for such utilisation in the conditions
of allotment, whichever is longer - But
where that period has already expired
before
the
commencement
of
the
amending Act i.e. before 28.07.2020, the
second part of the proviso comes into
play, under which, the Authority is to give
a notice to the allottee, to use the land, for
the purpose for which it was allotted,
within a period of one year - if within the
above period of one year the allottee does
not use the land, then the allotment and
lease deed stand automatically cancelled -
Period of one year, as envisaged in the
second part of the proviso, has to be
reckoned from the date of service of the
notice & not from the date of enforcement
of the U.P. Act No. 25 of 2020 i.e.
28.7.2020 (Para 14, 15)

Petitioner could not complete project within time
over plot of land allotted by NOIDA - petitioner
sought extension of time from 18.04.2019 to
07.04.2020, for construction, on payment of
extension charges - NOIDA Authority approved
the same - Petitioner again sought extension of
time from 08.04.2020 to 07.04.2021 - On
27.5.2021 NOIDA declined the request as
NOIDA counted the period of one year for
utilization of the land, for which it has been
allotted, as envisaged in the second part of the
proviso to Section 7, from the date of
enforcement of the U.P. Act No. 25 of 2020 i.e.
28.7.2020 & directed that petitioner has time
only till 28.7.2021 to complete the construction
- Held, impugned notice which refers to the
period of one year to be reckoned from
28.7.2020, being the date of commencement of
the U.P. Act No. 25 of 2020, is erroneous -
Period of one year, has to be reckoned from the
date of service of the notice - Impugned notice
quashed (Para 4, 15)

Allowed. (E-5)

## Text

1240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

16. For ease of reference, the
provision of Section 52-A of the Act is
extracted hereunder:

"52-A. Procedure on seizure.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
this Act or any other law for the time being
in force where a forest offence is believed
to have been committed in respect of any
forest produce, which is the property of the
State Government, the officer seizing the
property under sub-section (1) of Section
52 shall, without unreasonable delay,
produce it together with all the tools, boats,
vehicles, cattle, ropes, chains and other
articles used in committing the offence,
before an officer, not below the rank of a
Divisional Forest Officer, authorised by the
State Government in this behalf, who may,
for reasons to be recorded, make an order
in
writing
with
regard
to
custody,
possession,
delivery,
disposal
or
distribution of such property, and in case of
tools, boats, vehicles, cattle, ropes, chains
and other articles, may also confiscate
them."

17. The order impugned has been
passed while observing full procedural
propriety. The petitioner was given ample
opportunity of hearing to tender his
defence. The impugned order has also
considered the defence of the petitioner in
detail. The recovery memo has been found
to be credible. Sand was far in excess of the
permissible quantity. There was excavation
of sand from a prohibited area are of the
forest. The defence of the petitioner was
considered and disbelieved. The guilt of the
petitioner is established on the applicable
standard of evidence. The conclusions of
the impugned order in the facts of the case
are reasonable. No perversity in the order
has been shown by the pleadings or any
other material in the record nor made out
from the arguments.

18. The prerequisites for exercise of
the powers under confiscation have been
duly established. There are aggravating
circumstances which are also undisputed
from the records. The petitioner had
physically resisted and had grievously
assaulted the government servants who
were performing their lawful duties from
the petitioner and his adherents.

19. The petitioner has not disputed the
finding that he is a repeat offender against
forest laws.

20. In the wake of this discussion, I
find that the order of confiscation of the
vehicle was just and proper. Such chronic
offenders of law and persons, who
recklessly destroy the environment without
any care for the future generations have to
be dissuaded by the deterrence of lawful
penalties. The order of confiscation was
proportionate to the offence committed by
the petitioner and duly established by law.

21. The writ petition is dismissed.

22. In the facts of this case, it will not
be in the interest of justice to compound the
aforesaid offence. The deterrent effect of
the punishment has to take its course in this
case.
----------
(2021)09ILR A1240
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA , J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.
9 All M/s Logix Infomedia (P) Ltd. Hapur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1241
Writ C No. 18969 of 2021

M/s Logix Infomedia (P) Ltd. Hapur
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ms. Himadari Batra, Sri Anurag Khanna
(Senior Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh

U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, (6
of
1976)
-
U.P.
Industrial
Area
Development (Amendment) Act, 2020 -
(U.P.
Act
No.
25
of
2020)
w.e.f.
28.07.2020
-
Section
7
Proviso
-
Cancellation of allotment, if the land not
used for the purpose for which it was
allotted within a period of one year - inter
play of the two parts of the proviso to
Section 7 - under the first part of the
proviso the lease deed stands cancelled
where the land allotted is not utilized for
the purpose for which it was allotted
within the period of five years from the
date of possession or within the period
fixed for such utilisation in the conditions
of allotment, whichever is longer - But
where that period has already expired
before
the
commencement
of
the
amending Act i.e. before 28.07.2020, the
second part of the proviso comes into
play, under which, the Authority is to give
a notice to the allottee, to use the land, for
the purpose for which it was allotted,
within a period of one year - if within the
above period of one year the allottee does
not use the land, then the allotment and
lease deed stand automatically cancelled -
Period of one year, as envisaged in the
second part of the proviso, has to be
reckoned from the date of service of the
notice & not from the date of enforcement
of the U.P. Act No. 25 of 2020 i.e.
28.7.2020 (Para 14, 15)

Petitioner could not complete project within time
over plot of land allotted by NOIDA - petitioner
sought extension of time from 18.04.2019 to
07.04.2020, for construction, on payment of
extension charges - NOIDA Authority approved
the same - Petitioner again sought extension of
time from 08.04.2020 to 07.04.2021 - On
27.5.2021 NOIDA declined the request as
NOIDA counted the period of one year for
utilization of the land, for which it has been
allotted, as envisaged in the second part of the
proviso to Section 7, from the date of
enforcement of the U.P. Act No. 25 of 2020 i.e.
28.7.2020 & directed that petitioner has time
only till 28.7.2021 to complete the construction
- Held, impugned notice which refers to the
period of one year to be reckoned from
28.7.2020, being the date of commencement of
the U.P. Act No. 25 of 2020, is erroneous -
Period of one year, has to be reckoned from the
date of service of the notice - Impugned notice
quashed (Para 4, 15)

Allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J. &
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J. )

1. Heard Shri Anurag Khanna assisted
by Ms. Himadari Batra for the petitioner;
the learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent no. 1 and Shri Kaushalendra
Nath Singh for the respondent nos. 2 to 5.

2. Considering the nature of the order
that we propose to pass as also the ground
on which the order is proposed, Shri
Kaushalendra Nath Singh, who appears for
the contesting respondent nos. 2 to 5 and
the
learned
Standing
Counsel
who
represents the first respondent do not
propose to file a counter affidavit and are
agreeable for final disposal of the petition
at this stage itself.

3. At the outset, Shri Anurag Khanna,
learned counsel for the petitioner states that
he does not wish to press relief (b) in the
writ petition. He, therefore, confines his
prayer to relief (a), which is to quash the
order dated 27.5.2021 passed by the
1242 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Assistant General Manager (Institutional),
NOIDA (respondent no. 5).

4. According to the petitioner, on
24.1.2006, pursuant to an invitation by the
New
Okhla
Industrial
Development
Authority (for short NOIDA) for setting up
Educational/Training/Research
and
Development
Institutions/Software
IT
Units/IT enabled Services and other allied
Services etc. the petitioner submitted an
application for allotment of a plot of land.
In response thereto, a reservation-cumallotment letter dated 7.3.2006 was issued
to the petitioner allotting an area of 8000
sq. meter land on lease for 90 years.
However, the lease deed, dated 28.12.2007,
executed by NOIDA was with respect to an
area of 5184 sq. meter. Certain clauses of
the lease deed required the petitioner to
complete
the
constructions;
obtain
occupancy certificate from the competent
authority of NOIDA within the validity
period of approved building plan; and
ensure functioning of the unit on the
allotted plot, within five years from the
actual date of possession. Though, in case
of exceptional circumstances, an extension
could be allowed by the lessor subject to
extension charges at the rate of 4% of the
premium for each year on pro-rata monthly
basis. Following the execution of lease, on
7.1.2008, a possession certificate was
issued to the petitioner in respect of 5184
sq. meter of land. Thereafter, vide letter
dated 11.10.2012, the petitioner was
informed that though the area allotted was
8000 sq. meters but in measurement it
came
out
to
be
8100
sq.
meters.
Consequently, for additional 100 sq. meters
of land additional amount was demanded.
Whereafter, on 7.1.2013, a supplementary
lease deed was executed by NOIDA in
favour of the petitioner for the balance area
of 2916 sq. meters of land, which was
followed by a possession certificate dated
8.1.2013 in respect of the additional
demised land ad-measuring 2196 sq.
meters. It is submitted that due to late
transfer of possession of the total allotted
land, the project could not be completed
within
time,
consequently,
on
an
application made by the petitioner, the
NOIDA Authority by its letter dated
1.5.2017 accepted the request of the
petitioner for extension of time for
construction, on payment of extension
charges,
from
8.1.2015
to
7.4.2018.
Thereafter, on 20.3.2018, an application
was moved by the petitioner before the
NOIDA
Authority
for
purchasing
additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and
approval of a building plan. It is submitted
that the NOIDA Authority approved the
request for allocation of additional FAR on
18.6.2018.
Whereafter
the
petitioner
obtained no objection certificate from the
Fire Department on 17.7.2018 and from the
Pollution Control Board on 27.8.2018. The
petitioner then, again, applied to the
NOIDA Authority for extension of time for
construction, which was approved on
2.8.2019. On 12.3.2020, the building plans
of the petitioner were approved by the
NOIDA Authority and it also issued a no
dues certificate dated 29.7.2020. It is
submitted that in view of the disruption on
account
of
Covid-19
pandemic,
the
petitioner again, by means of letter dated
4.8.2020, sought an extension of time from
8.4.2020 to 7.4.2021 for which the due
amount was also deposited. However, on
27.5.2021, the NOIDA Authority passed
the impugned order declining the request
for extension on the basis of the proviso to
Section 7 of the U.P. Industrial Area
Development Act, 1976 (for short 1976
Act), which was inserted by means of the
U.P.
Industrial
Area
Development
(Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (Ordinance
9 All M/s Logix Infomedia (P) Ltd. Hapur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1243
No.16 of 2020). It was stated therein that
the time extension application of the
petitioner cannot be allowed in terms of the
newly inserted proviso to Section 7 of the
1976 Act and that the petitioner has time
only till 28.7.2021 to complete the
construction, failing which, the Authority
shall take further steps.

5. It be noticed that by means of the
U.P.
Industrial
Area
Development
(Amendment) Act, 2020 (U.P. Act No. 25
of 2020), the aforesaid Ordinance of 2020
was replaced and the proviso came to be
inserted in Section 7 of the 1976 Act with
effect from 28.07.2020.

6. It has been contended by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
impugned order is absolutely arbitrary
inasmuch as adequate and proper notice as
contemplated in the aforesaid U.P. Act No.
25 of 2020 has not been given.

7. Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh,
learned counsel for the NOIDA Authority,
on the basis of instructions received by him
has stated that as per the letter dated
30.7.2021 sent by the State Government to
the NOIDA Authority, the period of one
year as envisaged in the second part of the
proviso to Section 7 of the 1976 Act,
inserted by U.P. Act No. 25 of 2020, is to
be counted from the date of service of
notice and, therefore, the period of one year
for utilization of the land, for which it has
been allotted, is to be counted from
27.5.2021 i.e. the date of the notice/order.

8. Countering this, the learned
counsel for the petitioner has urged that in
the impugned notice, dated 27.5.2021,
given by the respondent-Authority, the time
period of one year has been counted from
28.7.2020, that is from the date on which
the U.P. Act No. 25 of 2020 came into
force. It is contended that that action of the
NOIDA Authority is patently arbitrary and
is in the teeth of the second part of the
proviso to Section 7 of the 1976 Act. He
contends that the second part of the proviso
to Section 7 clearly provides that where the
period provided in first part for utilization
of the land has already lapsed before the
commencement of the amending Act, the
Authority is to give a notice to the allottee
to use the land for the purpose it was
allotted within a period of one year and if
within the above period of one year the
allottee does not use the land, it is then that
the allotment and lease deed would stand
automatically cancelled. In support of the
above contention, the petitioner has relied
upon a judgement of this Court dated
2.2.2021 passed in Writ-C No. 2238 of
2021 (M/s. J.M. Housing Limited Vs. State
of U.P. and others), copy of which has been
enclosed as Annexure- 37 to this petition.

9. Another argument raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
supplementary lease deed was executed on
7.1.2013 and, only thereafter, that the
petitioner got possession of the entire area
of 8100 sq. meters of land therefore, the
petitioner cannot be saddled with the
burden imposed by the proviso to Section 7
of the 1976 Act, particularly, when, after
receiving the possession of the entire area
of 8100 sq. meters of land, the petitioner
applied for additional FAR, as also no
objection
certificate
from
various
authorities, and for sanction of the building
plans.

10.

Dealing
with
the
second
submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner first, which is based on the socalled supplementary lease deed dated
7.1.2013, it is observed that it is not a
1244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
supplementary lease deed but a correction
deed that corrects the area of the plot
mentioned in the original lease deed so as
to be read as 8100 sq. meters in place of
5184 sq. meters. Similarly, it incorporates
necessary
corrections
regarding
the
premium, lease rent, etc.. In this correction
deed
of
7.1.2013
it
is
specifically
mentioned that all other terms and
conditions of the original lease deed and
allotment letter shall remain unchanged and
applicable as well as binding upon the
lessee. Therefore, no further benefit in
respect of extension of time can enure to
the petitioner on the basis of the deed
executed on 7.1.2013.

11. As regards the first submission of
the learned counsel for the petitioner
regarding the impugned notice/order dated
27.5.2021 being arbitrary and in the teeth
of the true import of the second part of the
proviso to Section 7 of the 1976 Act, on
perusal of the record and consideration of
the submissions of the respective parties, it
appears to us that this contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner has force.
It be noticed that to Section 7 of the 1976
Act a proviso was inserted by U.P. Act No.
25 of 2020. The published Statement of
Objects and Reasons of U.P. Act No.25 of
2020 is extracted below:

"The Uttar Pradesh Industrial
Area Development Act, 1976 (U.P. Act
No.6 of 1976) has been enacted to provide
for the constitution of an Authority for the
development of certain areas in the State
into industrial and urban township and for
the matters connected therewith. In order to
accelerate industrialisation in the State, it
was felt necessary to increase the land
bank. Hence it was decided that if the
industrial unit is not established within a
period of five years from the date of
possession, or within the period fixed for
such utilisation, whichever is longer, the
lease
deed
will
stand
automatically
canceled and the land shall vest with the
Industrial Development Authority. Where
the aforesaid period has lapsed before the
commencement of this Act, the Authority
shall give notice to the allottee and if the
allottee does not use the land within the
period of one year mentioned above, the
allotment and lease deed shall be deemed to
have been automatically cancelled. In view
of the above, it had been decided to amend
aforesaid Act.

Since the State legislature was
not in session and immediate legislative
action was necessary to implement the
aforesaid decision, the Uttar Pradesh
Industrial Area Development (Amendment)
Ordinance, 2020 ( U.P. Ordinance No.16 of
2020) was promulgated by the Governor on
July 28, 2020.

The Bill is introduced to replace
the aforesaid Ordinance."

12. The amended Section 7 of 1976
Act, after insertion of the proviso by U.P.
Act No.25 of 2020, reads as follows:

"7. Power to the Authority in
respect of transfer of land. - The
Authority may sell, lease or otherwise
transfer whether by auction, allotment or
otherwise any land or building belonging to
the Authority in the industrial development
area, on such terms and conditions as it
may, subject to any rules that may be made
under this Act, think fit to impose.

Provided that where any land so
allotted is not utilised for the purpose for
which it was allotted within the period of
five years from the date of possession or
9 All M/s Logix Infomedia (P) Ltd. Hapur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1245
within the period fixed for such utilisation
in the conditions of allotment, whichever is
longer, the lease deed will stand cancelled
and the land shall vest with the Authority.
Provided further where the aforesaid period
has
already
lapsed
before
the
commencement of this Act, the Authority
shall give a notice to the allottee to use the
land for the purpose for which it was
allotted within a period of one year and if
within the above period of one year the
allottee does not use the land, then the
allotment and lease deed shall stand
automatically cancelled.".

13. A coordinate Bench of this Court
in its judgment dated 2.2.2021 in M/s. J.M.
Housing Limited (supra) has observed as
follows:

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

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

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

15. A perusal of the notice/order
impugned dated 27.5.2021 reveals that the
period of one year, as envisaged in the
second part of the proviso to Section 7 of
1246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the 1976 Act, has been reckoned from
28.7.2020, which is the date of enforcement
of the U.P. Act No. 25 of 2020, and not the
date of service of the notice. It is the case
of the petitioner that the NOIDA Authority
approved the time extension sought from
the petitioner from 18.4.2019 to 7.4.2020.
This period had already lapsed before
28.7.2020 i.e. the commencement of the
U.P. Act No. 25 of 2020. Therefore, in our
view, the second part of the proviso to
Section 7 of the 1976 Act became
applicable as per which the Authority (in
this case NOIDA) had to give notice to the
allottee to use the land for the purpose for
which it is allotted within a period of one
year. Thus, in our considered view, the
impugned notice dated 27.5.2021, which
refers to the period of one year to be
reckoned from 28.7.2020, being the date of
commencement of the U.P. Act No. 25 of
2020, is erroneous.

16. Consequently, the order/notice
impugned dated 27.5.2021 passed by the
respondent no. 5 is quashed. This petition is
disposed of by leaving it open to the
NOIDA Authority to take steps for
issuance of notice to the petitioner as
contemplated in the second part of the
proviso to Section 7 of the 1976 Act.
----------
(2021)09ILR A1246
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

Writ C No. 19783 of 2021

AB (2021) ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act,
1971
- Sections 3
&
5
-
Medical
Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment)
Act, 2021, dated 25.03.2021 - Outer limit
for abortion has been enhanced to 24
weeks - pregnancy could be terminated by
a registered medical practitioner, if he is
of opinion, formed in good faith, that
continuance of the pregnancy would
involve a risk to the life of pregnant
woman, or grave injury to her physical or
mental health, or there is a substantial
risk of child suffering from physical or
mental
abnormalities,
if
born
-
Explanation-I to sub-section (2) of Section
3 - legal presumption - legal presumption
that pregnancy caused by rape would
result in anguish to the pregnant woman
and would constitute a grave injury to her
mental health - 'best interests' test and
the
'substituted
judgment'
test
for
determining
whether
the
pregnancy
should be permitted to be continued or
not - 'best interest' test requires the court
to ascertain the course of action which
would serve the best interest of the
person
in
question
-
'substituted
judgment' test requires the court to step
into the shoes of a person who is
considered to be mentally incapable and
attempt to make the decision which the
said person would have made, if she was
competent to do so (Para 9, 10)

Permission sought for termination of pregnancy
of victim of rape - victim major - Court
constituted a Board of 4 experts one each in the
field of Gynecology, Psychiatry, Radiology or
Sonology and Pediatrics - As per medical report
length of pregnancy less than 24 weeks - Board
opined that since the petitioner does not want
to continue her pregnancy, compelling her to do
so, may pose a risk to her mental health and
consequent
physical
and
mental
health
problems
to
the
child
-
Medical
Board
unequivocally in favour of fetus being aborted to