# M/s Rajhans Infratech Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 6 ILRA 346
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-03-17
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 12462 of 2020
- **Bench:** Pankaj Naqvi, Piyush Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-rajhans-infratech-pvt-ltd-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47094
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

U.P. Industrial Area Development Act,
1976 - "Zero Period" - authority framed
policy dated 1.1.2016 for granting benefit
of "Zero Period" - it provides that in the
event an allottee is unable to take actual
physical possession of the demised area
on account of encroachment or a pending
6 All. M/s Rajhans Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
347
dispute - authority is entitled to waive
lease rent, interest and penal interest
thereon for a definite period (Para 2)

Plot of the petitioner was inaccessible from
27.4.2010
to
15.5.2015,
on
account
of
encroachment & in absence of any approach
road, preventing the petitioner from raising any
constructions - Held - petitioner liable to be
granted benefit of zero period from 27.4.2010 to
15.5.2015 in view of policy dated 1.1.2016 -
authority cannot take advantage of its own
wrong i.e. by not providing the complete
physical possession of the allotted plot to the
petitioner and at the same time, levying
additional changes for not completing the
constructions within a stipulated period (Para
8,9)

Allowed. (E-4)

## Text

346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. We have already held that
compensation is neither a debt nor security
and, therefore, the provisions of part X of
the Indian Succession Act, 1925, shall not
apply in matters of compensation. We are
also fortified by the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rukhsana
(Smt) and Ors. Vs. Nazrunnisa (Smt)
and Anr., 2000 (9) SCC 240, in which
Hon'ble Supreme Court considered similar
facts and held as under :-

"3. We cannot approve the said
view of the High Court, for, Succession
Certificate as envisaged in the Indian
Succession Act can be granted only in
respect of "debts" or "securities" to which a
deceased
was
entitled.
The
amount
involved in this case was not a debt or
security to which the deceased was entitled.
This was a compensation sanctioned on
account of the death of the deceased and is,
therefore, not an asset belonging to the
deceased but an amount which the legal
representatives of the deceased can claim
on their own account. The civil court will
only decide as to who are the legal
representatives and in what shares they are
entitled to as per the Personal Law
applicable to them. The Parties will move
appropriate application before the court
concerned for expediting the procedure
regarding disbursement of the amount.
With these observations we set aside the
impugned order."

16. For the reasons aforestated, we
find that the District Magistrate, Mau, is
bound
to
disburse
the
amount
of
compensation to the petitioners who are the
legal heirs and representatives of the
deceased Mohd. Faize. Therefore, we direct
the respondent no.3 to disburse the amount
of compensation forthwith. Petitioners are
granted liberty to move an application
before the respondent no.3 for payment of
interest for the period the aforesaid amount
of
compensation
has
been
illegally
withheld by the respondent no.3. In the
event such an application is filed by the
petitioners within four months alongwith a
copy of this order, the respondent no.3 shall
pass an appropriate order in accordance
with law within next three weeks and if any
amount of interest is found to be due and
payable, the same shall be paid by the
respondent no.3 to the petitioners within
next three weeks.

17. Writ petition is allowed to the
extent indicated above.
----------
(2021)06ILR A346
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ NAQVI, J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 12462 of 2020

M/s Rajhans Infratech Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shri Amarendra Nath Singh, Sri Uma Nath
Pandey, Sri Anil Kumar Chobey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Anjali Upadhya, Sri Ramendra Pratap
Singh, Alok Singh

U.P. Industrial Area Development Act,
1976 - "Zero Period" - authority framed
policy dated 1.1.2016 for granting benefit
of "Zero Period" - it provides that in the
event an allottee is unable to take actual
physical possession of the demised area
on account of encroachment or a pending
6 All. M/s Rajhans Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
347
dispute - authority is entitled to waive
lease rent, interest and penal interest
thereon for a definite period (Para 2)

Plot of the petitioner was inaccessible from
27.4.2010
to
15.5.2015,
on
account
of
encroachment & in absence of any approach
road, preventing the petitioner from raising any
constructions - Held - petitioner liable to be
granted benefit of zero period from 27.4.2010 to
15.5.2015 in view of policy dated 1.1.2016 -
authority cannot take advantage of its own
wrong i.e. by not providing the complete
physical possession of the allotted plot to the
petitioner and at the same time, levying
additional changes for not completing the
constructions within a stipulated period (Para
8,9)

Allowed. (E-4)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi, J. &
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.)

Heard Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ramendra
Pratap
Singh,
learned
counsel
for
respondent nos. 2 & 3 and the learned
standing counsel.

1. A consortium of 4 real estate
developers was allotted by Greater Noida
Industrial
Development
Authority
(GNIDA), plot no. GH-06 Sector -1,
Greater Noida, area 738000 sq. mtrs. For a
group
housing
on
27.4.2010.
The
consortium was permitted under the order
of authority dated 24.3.2011 for subdivision of the said plot. Plot no. GH-06-B
(area 20000 sq. mtr) was allotted to the
petitioner, one of the 4 members of the
consortium, after sub-division. The order of
sub-division indicated that petitioner was
granted 24 mtr. wide approach road to
access his plot. A lease deed dated
27.5.2011 in respect of 17,728.40 sq. mtrs.
and a supplementary lease dated 1.7.2013
for area 2306.4 sq. mtrs came to be
executed for 90 years in favour of the
petitioner. It is alleged that petitioner could
access his plot only through Khasra Nos.
663 & 654 which were under litigation as
there was an order of status quo, as a result
of which actual physical possession in
respect of above khasra could not be
delivered till 14.5.2015 when the same was
removed with police aid.

2. The authority has framed a policy
dated 1.1.2016 for granting benefit of "Zero
Period" which provides that in the event an
allottee is unable to take actual physical
possession of the demised area on account
of encumbrance or encroachment or a
pending dispute, the authority is entitled to
waive lease rent, interest and penal interest
thereon for a definite period. In the present
case, "Zero Period", was alleged from
27.4.2010 to 15.5.2015. The petitioner
staked a claim for Zero Period on
18.4.2016 which came to be rejected on
22.3.2018 which the petitioner claims was
never communicated to him and claims to
have learnt about it on 2.7.2018, when it
was challenged in Writ C No. 23624/2019.
The said writ petition came to be disposed
of on 6.8.2019 directing the petitioner to
approach the State Government. The
revision preferred by the petitioner came to
be disposed of by the State Government on
17.3.2020 for fresh consideration in the
light of resolution of the 104th Board
Meeting. Pursuant thereto, the authority
rejected the claim on 9.7.2020, impugned
herein.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
challenges the order dated 9.7.2020 on the
following grounds:-

(i)
Plot
of
the
petitioner
was
inaccessible from 27.4.2010 to 15.5.2015,
in the absence of any approach road,
348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
preventing the petitioner from raising any
constructions.

(ii) Petitioner was entitled to parity
from others who had been granted benefit
of zero period.

(iii) Case of petitioner is squarely
covered under the terms and conditions as
contained in the policy dated 1.1.2016.

4. Learned counsel for the authority
opposed the submissions on the premise
that the sub-division of the plot was carried
out by the petitioner and other members of
consortium knowing fully well the location
of its plot and the approach road after subdivision. No case for parity as the ground
situation is absolutely different qua the
petitioner. Once the case of the petitioner
has been considered in the light of
parameters provided under the G.O. dated
1.1.2016, this Court under Article 226 is
prohibited to act as a court of appeal.

5. The GNIDA is an authority
constituted under Section 3 of the U.P.
Industrial Area Development Act, 1976.
The object of the authority shall be to
secure the planned development of the
industrial development areas.

6. From the perusal of the policy
dated 1.1.2016 (Page-129-130 of the
petition),
it
appears
that
following
conditions have been laid down for the
grant of benefit of Zero Period:-

(i) If for some reason, the authority is
unable to deliver possession to the allottee
or developer.

(ii) The authority is unable to deliver
possession to the allottee / developer as the
same
could
disturb
the
peace
and
tranquility of the area or there is an
encroachment
as
a
result
of
which
development is unable to proceed.

(ii) Execution of allotment / lease /
delivery of possession is unable to take
place in view of pending interim order of a
court.

(iv) Lease deed is unable to be
executed on account of G.O or a decision
of the Board.

(v) If the authority has delivered
possession to the allottee and the lease deed
executed but the allottee in unable to access
the plot as a result of which development is
impossible to commence, the allottee is
entitled to the benefit of zero period upto
the date on which alternate access is
provided.

7. The petitioner, one of the four
members of the consortium, was allotted
plot no. GH-06-B after the authority had
consented for sub-division under the order
dated 24.3.2011. The authority is a
signatory to the sub-division. Although 24
mtrs. wide approach road was assigned to
the petitioner under the order of subdivision, no approach road whatsoever was
actually provided to the petitioner till
15.5.2015 which is an admitted fact. It
could not be disputed that in the absence of
any approach road, construction at the
assigned plot was impossible. The authority
being a signatory to the order of subdivision, cannot feign ignorance on the
ground that it was an internal matter of the
consortium.
The
authority
being
an
instrumentality of a State, was obliged to
act reasonably and fairly by providing
actual physical possession of the approach
road over khasra no. 663 & 654 to the
petitioner which was under unauthorized
possession coupled with the fact that not
only the said fact was admitted to the
petitioner
but
also
it
delivered
the
possession of this area to the petitioner
after removing encroachment with the aid
of police only on 15.5.2013.
6 All. Kanhaiya Lal Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
349

8. We, in the light of above
discussion, are of the considered view that
the petitioner was liable to be granted
benefit of zero period from 27.4.2010 to
15.5.2015 in view of Clause-5 of the policy
dated 1.1.2016 as inserted by the resolution
of Board Meeting dated 14.3.2016. Once
the case of petitioner is found to be
successful on merits of the terms and
conditions of the policy and 104th Board
Resolution, we do not feel the necessity to
enter into the claim of parity.

9. The impugned order suffers from
absolute non-application of mind as it was
not only admitted case that there was
encroachment over khasra nos. 663 & 654
on which 24 mts. wide approach road was
granted to the petitioner but on account of
encroachment, possession of the same
could be delivered with the police aid only
on 15.5.2015 coupled with the fact that its
case was also not considered as per the
104th Board Resolution. We are also of the
view that the authority cannot take
advantage of its own wrong i.e. by not
providing the complete physical possession
of the allotted plot to the petitioner and at
the same time, levying additional changes
for not completing the constructions within
a stipulated period. This approach would
not only be counter productive rather
deterimental to the industrial development
of the area. We, thus, have no option but to
set aside the order dated 9.7.2020.

10. The writ petition is allowed. The
order dated 9.7.2020 is set aside/quashed.
The competent authority is directed to
consider the case of the petitioner for grant
of benefit of zero period w.e.f. 27.4.2010 to
15.5.2015, as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within 6 weeks, from the the
date of receipt of this order, in the light of
observation made above and in accordance
with law, under intimation to the petitioner.
----------
(2021)06ILR A349
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.06.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Writ-C No. 27346 of 2020

Kanhaiya Lal Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Suresh Chandra Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code
(2 of 1974) - Section 197 - Prosecution of
public
servants-
''while
acting
or
purporting to act in discharge of their
official duty" - Protection when - An
accused public servant has to show that
there is reasonable connection between
the act complained of and the discharge of
official
duty
-
act
of
the
accused
complained of must be such that the same
cannot be separated from the discharge of
official
duty
-
where
there
is
no
reasonable connection between the act
complained of and the performance of
official duties, no sanction under Section
197, Cr.P.C. would be required - where a
criminal act is performed under the colour
of authority but which in reality the act is
for the public servant's own pleasure or
benefit, then such acts are not protected
under the doctrine of State immunity -
such claim an be examined during the
course of trial by giving opportunity to the
defence to establish it [Para 31 (viii), (ix)]