# M/S Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 2 ILRA 312
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-02-24
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 31823 of 2019
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Prashant Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-three-c-green-developers-pvt-ltd-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53132
- **Pages:** 49

## Headnote

(A) Administrative Law - Fraud Vitiates
Everything - Public Trust Doctrine - Urban
Planning and Development - Piercing of
Administrative Veil - NOIDA Master Plan
2031 - Judicial Review - Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 7 -
Doctrine of Integrated Project - Collusion
in Public Contracts - Scam - CAG Report -
Directions for CBI Investigation - Courts
can intervene in administrative decisions
marred by fraud, irrationality, or illegality
- Corporate veil can be lifted to identify
individuals
responsible
for
fraudulent
activities - Fraudulent collusion between
builders and Noida Authority officials
vitiates the entire Sports City Project,
warranting judicial intervention and CBI
investigation. (Para -101,126 ,130 -140)

Allotment of land by NOIDA under Sports City
Scheme 2010-11 was marred by collusion
between NOIDA officials and developers -
Conditions of the scheme required development
of international-standard sports infrastructure
over 70% of the project land with limited
residential/commercial
use
-
Developers
violated scheme by fragmenting land, subleasing to ineligible entities, failing to construct
sports facilities - CAG report revealed ₹9000
crore loss. (Paras 44-47, 101, 126, 130-140,
152)

(B) Corporate Law - Piercing of Corporate
Veil
-
Doctrine
of
Alter
Ego
-
Instrumentality Rule - Integrated Project
Doctrine - Statutory Non-compliance -
Scam

Multiple companies floated by same promoters
used as alter egos to evade legal responsibility -
Corporate
veil
lifted
-
Same
individuals
controlled multiple entities constituting the
consortium - Companies used as instruments of
fraud and siphoning - Shareholding changes
2 All. M/S Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
313
made illegally without NOIDA approval -
Scheme violated - Corporate structure used to
mask true liability and benefit from project
monetization without fulfilling public obligations.
(Paras - 55 to 61)

HELD: Fraudulent actions by builders in
connivance with NOIDA officials vitiated the
Sports
City
project.
Judicial
interference
justified. Corporate veil
lifted
to identify
responsible individuals/entities. CBI investigation
directed. Guidelines issued regarding insolvency
proceedings in consortium-led public projects.
(Para -152)

Petition disposed of. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,963 of 133,361. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39963 for what follows._

312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
buyers have to be protected, if the
petitioners are not able to complete the
project strictly as per the brochure
condition of the sports city scheme and the
lease deed conditions. The money deposited
by them be forfeited and used for paying
back the homebuyers and if there is any
shortfall, NOIDA Authority will pay the
same. This direction will not adversely
affect the NOIDA inasmuch as even after
doing that still the NOIDA will make far
much more money, if the same scheme is
re-launched at the current market price.

(v). It is made clear that the
original allottee/sub allottees will not be
allowed to sell the land or transfer the
companies by transferring the shareholding
until and unless the first phase of the sports
city is completed as per the terms of the
Scheme and the Sport City Brochure. Any
transfer made contrary to the scheme
would not be recognized. The allottee
cannot take any further undue benefits and
may not be allowed to sell, transfer, lease
or change their shareholdings until and
unless the first phase of the project is
completed.

163. With the aforesaid directions, all
these writ petitions are consigned to record.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 312
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.02.2025

BEFORE

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

Writ C No. 31823 of 2019

M/S Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Monika Vaish

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

(A) Administrative Law - Fraud Vitiates
Everything - Public Trust Doctrine - Urban
Planning and Development - Piercing of
Administrative Veil - NOIDA Master Plan
2031 - Judicial Review - Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 7 -
Doctrine of Integrated Project - Collusion
in Public Contracts - Scam - CAG Report -
Directions for CBI Investigation - Courts
can intervene in administrative decisions
marred by fraud, irrationality, or illegality
- Corporate veil can be lifted to identify
individuals
responsible
for
fraudulent
activities - Fraudulent collusion between
builders and Noida Authority officials
vitiates the entire Sports City Project,
warranting judicial intervention and CBI
investigation. (Para -101,126 ,130 -140)

Allotment of land by NOIDA under Sports City
Scheme 2010-11 was marred by collusion
between NOIDA officials and developers -
Conditions of the scheme required development
of international-standard sports infrastructure
over 70% of the project land with limited
residential/commercial
use
-
Developers
violated scheme by fragmenting land, subleasing to ineligible entities, failing to construct
sports facilities - CAG report revealed ₹9000
crore loss. (Paras 44-47, 101, 126, 130-140,
152)

(B) Corporate Law - Piercing of Corporate
Veil
-
Doctrine
of
Alter
Ego
-
Instrumentality Rule - Integrated Project
Doctrine - Statutory Non-compliance -
Scam

Multiple companies floated by same promoters
used as alter egos to evade legal responsibility -
Corporate
veil
lifted
-
Same
individuals
controlled multiple entities constituting the
consortium - Companies used as instruments of
fraud and siphoning - Shareholding changes
2 All. M/S Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
313
made illegally without NOIDA approval -
Scheme violated - Corporate structure used to
mask true liability and benefit from project
monetization without fulfilling public obligations.
(Paras - 55 to 61)

HELD: Fraudulent actions by builders in
connivance with NOIDA officials vitiated the
Sports
City
project.
Judicial
interference
justified. Corporate veil
lifted
to identify
responsible individuals/entities. CBI investigation
directed. Guidelines issued regarding insolvency
proceedings in consortium-led public projects.
(Para -152)

Petition disposed of. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:
1. St. of U.P. & ors.Vs Renusagar Power Co. &
ors., 1988 (4) SCC 59
2. D.D.A. Vs Skipper Construction Co. & anr.,
1996 (4) SCC 622
3. Shubhra Mukherjee Vs B.C.C.L., 2000 (3) SCC
312
4. St. of Raj. Vs Gotan Limestone Khanij Udyog
Pvt. Ltd. & anr., 2016 (4) SCC 469
5. A.F.C. Ltd. Vs St. of Guj. & anr., 1985 SCC
Online Guj 93
6. Hytone Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Vs S.A.C. Pvt.
Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 258
of 2021
7. V.I.P. Ltd. Vs Axis Bank Ltd., (2022) 8 SCC
352
8. Raster Images Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. of U.P., 2023
SCC Online 3594
9. Salomon Vs Salomon & Co. Ltd., 1897 AC 22
:(1895-99)AII ER Rep 33 (HL)
10. Littlewoods Stores Vs I.R.C., 1969 (1) WLR
1241
11. St. of U.P. Vs Renusagar Power Co. , (1988)
4 SCC 59
12. St. of Raj. & ors.Vs G.L.S.K.U. Pvt. Ltd. &
anr., (2016) 4 SCC 469
13. Subhra Mukharjee & anr. Vs B.C.C.L. & anr.,
(2003) 3 SCC 312
14. Calcutta Chromotype Ltd. Vs Collector of
Central Excise Kolkata, AIR 1998 SC 1631
15. New Horizon Ltd. & anr. Vs U.O.I. & ors.,
1995 (1) SCC 478
16. C.I.T. Vs Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Madura, AIR
1967 SC 819
17. Telco & ors Vs St. of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 40
18. Juggi Lal Kamlapat Vs C.I.T., U.P., AIR 1969
SC 932
19. D.D.A. Vs S.C.C. (P) Ltd. & anr.,1996 (4)
SCC 622
20. Nirmal Singh Vs St. of U.P. , Writ C no
41110 of 2019
21. Udgar Gagan Properties Ltd. Vs Sant Singh
& ors., 2016 (11) SCC 378
22. Madhukar Sadbha Shivarkar (D) by Lrs. Vs
St. of Maha. & ors, 2015 (6) SCC 557
23. Secy., J.D.A., Jaipur Vs Daulat Mal Jain &
ors., (1997) 1 SCC 35
24. U.O.I. Vs H.D.C., (1993) 3 SCC 499
25. U.G.P. Ltd. Vs Sant Singh, 2016 (11) SCC
378
26. Disha Vs St. of Guj., (2011) 13 SCC 337
27. St. of W.B. Vs C.P.D.R., W.B., 2010 SCC
OnLine SC 297
28. Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P.
Vs Sahngoo Ram, (2002) 5 SCC 521
29. K.V. Rajendran Vs S.P., CBCID, (2013) 12
SCC 480
30. Sakiri Vasu Vs St. of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409
31. Rubabbuddin Sheikh Vs St. of Guj., (2010) 2
SCC 200

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra
Tripathi, J.
&
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar, J.)
314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

TABLE OF CONTENTS
S.No. Heading
Page No.
A.
Factual Matrix & History of the
development of the Sports City
02-03
B.
Sports City Scheme 2010-2011
03-06
C.
Land Use of Sports City
06-16
D.
Arguments on behalf of the
petitioners
16-18
E.
Arguments on behalf of the Noida
Authority
18-35
F.
Analysis
35
G.
Effect of Past Conduct
35-36
H.
Scheme-
2010-2011
for
development of Sport City in
Noida and its violation
36-44
I.
Insolvency Lifting of Corporation
Veil
44-50
J.
Zero Period
50-51
K.
Scam
51-53
L.
Fraud
53-55
M.
Piercing of Administrative Veil
55-57
N.
Scope of Judicial Interference
57-59
O.
CBI Inquiry
59-63
P.
Corporate Insolvency
63-65
Q
Effect on consortium when a
member of the consortium goes
into the insolvency
65
R.
Recommendations
66
S.
Directions
67
1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Rai,
learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri
Mohan
Srivastava,
learned
Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri
Manish Goyal, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh
and Ms. Anjali Gokhlani, learned counsel
for respondent-NOIDA.

A.
FACTUAL
MATRIX
AND
HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE SPORTS CITY

2. The Board of Noida Authority
took a decision on 16.8.2004, to develop
sports facilities of international standards in
Noida. In the meeting held on 25.6.2007
the Board came to a conclusion that there
are no sports facilities available in Noida,
hence, an area of 311.60 hectares was
marked for development of the sports city.
In the next Board meeting held on
8.4.2008, it was resolved, keeping in mind
of the upcoming Commonwealth Games in
2010, that the land use of sector 76, 78, 79,
101, 102, 104 and 107 be changed for the
development of the sports city. However,
the area earmarked to develop sports city
was
increased
to
346
hectares.
Accordingly, Grant Thorton was appointed
to formulate the scheme and also formulate
conditions for the allotment of the land. In
the next Board meetings held on 18.9.2008,
the amended Masterplan - 2031 of Noida
was considered. It was for the first time that
the details as to what was expected in the
sports city were mentioned. Clause 5.9.3 of
the master plan laid down the details of the
sports city. On 1.10.2008, and 4.11.2008,
the brochure for the sports city was
finalised and the process for the change of
the land use was initiated. The scheme
seems to have been launched and was
extended upto 12.1.2009, but was not
finalised. Thereafter, in September 2010,
the area of the Sports City was changed
from 311 hectares to 150 hectares. Grant
Thornton was asked to give a fresh detailed
project report and thereafter the reserved
price was fixed. From 2010-11 to 2015-16,
four sports city projects were launched on a
total area of 798 acres, in which 3 golf
courses,
one
cricket
stadium
of
2 All. M/S Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
315
international standards, and other sports
facilities of international standards were
planned. This case pertains to one of those
four projects where no development on the
sports facility has taken place but the
allottees/ builders have already monetized
the part of the project that was meant for
recovery of cost incurred to build the sports
facilities.

B. SPORTS CITY SCHEME 20102011

3. As per the formulated scheme, New
Okhla Industrial Development Authority1
sometime in the year 2011 launched the
project of "Sports City" which was to be
developed in Sectors 78, 79 and 150 of
NOIDA. The scheme was launched on
03.03.2011 and closed on 24.03.2011. As
per the scheme, a Sports City was to be
developed on a land parcel of 72.75 hectare
(7,27,500 sqm) in Sector 78 and 79 and
another sports city in Sector 150.

4. The reserve price for the scheme
was set at Rs.11,500/- per square metre.
The developer was supposed to create
sports facilities over 70% of the entire land
area, which was not marketable, and to set
off this expense in developing the sports
city, the developer was allowed to construct
group housing on 28% and commercial on
2% of the total land with FAR of 1.5. The
scheme clearly stated that the population
density in this Sports City would be 1650
people per hectare. The open/green area of
the recreational component (i.e. sports
activities such as Golf course, stadium etc.
and open spaces) was to be considered as
open green areas for the entire land. The
relevant conditions in the Brochure were as
follows:-

* The shareholding of the lead
member in the consortium shall remain at
least
30%
till
the
temporary
occupancy/completion certificate of at least
one phase of the project is obtained from
the Noida.

* SPCs that will subsequently
carry out all its responsibilities as the
allottee, and will have to construct on their
own a minimum of 30% of the total
permissible FAR on allotted area.

*The "Lead Member" shall
continue to hold at least 30% of the
shareholding in the SPC till the temporary
occupancy/completion certificate at least
one phase of the project is obtained from
the NOIDA

*In case of default in depositing
the instalments or any payment, interest @
14% compounded half yearly shall be
leviable for defaulted period on the
defaulted amount.

*The Lessee shall be required to
complete the construction of minimum 15%
of the permissible area earmarked for
sports, institutional and other facilities
within a period of 3 years from the date
of execution of Lease Deed and shall
complete the project in phases within 5
years. However, the residential and
commercial
development/construction
may be completed in phases within 7
years.

*Further more, the lessee has to
develop
residential
and
commercial
component in the project in proportion to
area earmarked for recreational uses.

* The 'Completion Certificate'
will be issued by the NOIDA on the
completion of the project or part thereof in
phases and on the submission of the
necessary
documents
required
for
certifying the completion of the project or
part thereof.
316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

*The lessee shall execute an
Indemnity bond Indemnifying the NOIDA
against all disputes arising out of noncompletion of the project.

* Without obtaining the completion
certificate the lessee shall have the right to subdivide the allotted plot into suitable smaller plot
as per the planning norms of the NOIDA only
for the area available for residential and
commercial use and to transfer the same to the
interested parties, if any, with the prior
approval of the NOIDA on payment of transfer
charges at the rate prevailing on the date of
transfer.

*After the written approval of the
Lessor/NOIDA Authority, the lessee can
implement/develop the project through its
multiple subsidiary companies in which the
allottee/lessee company shall have minimum
90% equity share holdings Choose an account

* Sub lease of land/built-up area
shall be allowed on the basis of approved
layout and building plans by NOIDA.

*
NOIDA
will
monitor
the
implementation of the project. Applicants who
do not have a firm commitment to implement
the project within the time limits prescribed are
advised not to avail the allotment.
(Emphasis supplied)
5. In response to the application
only two companies applied for the
allotment of Sports City, first being M/s
Wave Pvt. Ltd., which had applied at the
reserve price and the second was a
consortium of companies led by one M/s
Xanadu Estates Pvt. Ltd. (being the Lead
Member) along with 8 other companies
(being the Relevant Members). The bid of
the consortium of M/s Xanadu Estates Pvt.
Ltd. being the highest was allotted the
sports city project (SC-01 sector 78-79).
6. The Noida Authority issued an
Acceptance
Letter
on
28.03.2011
and
informed the lead member about the allotment,
thereafter, Noida Authority issued Allotmentcum-Reservation Letter dated 04.05.2011 and
called upon the Consortium to deposit
reservation money. It was informed to the
Consortium that total land parcel admeasuring 7,27,500 square metres as Plot No.
SC-01, Sector 78 & 79 was reserved in favour
of the Consortium as per the terms and
conditions of the Scheme.
7. Vide letter dated 11.10.2011,
the
Consortium
requested
the
authorities to make sub division of the
allotted
plot
in
favour
of
the
Consortium
members,
who
have
together applied as a Consortium. This
request of the Consortium was approved
by Noida Authority on 24.10.2011.and
the entire sports city project was
divided as under:-
 (1) SC-01/A sector 79 1,00,000
Sqm. M/s Sequel Buildcon Pvt. Ltd

(2) SC-01/B sector 79 48,000
Sqm. M/s Sequel Buildcon Pvt. Ltd

(3)
SC-01/Csector
79
2,50,027 Sqm. M/s Three C Green
Developers Pvt. Ltd

(4)
SC-01/D
sector
79
1,00,000 Sqm. M/s Kindle Developers
Pvt. Ltd

(5) SC-01/E sector 79 80,000
Sqm. M/s Xanadu Realcon Pvt. Ltd

(6)
SC-01
Sector-78
14,272.50 Sqm. which is the part
allotted area total 14,519.00 sq mts of
plot no.SC-01 Sector -78 Noida.
2 All. M/S Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
317

8. Curiously, the said entity i.e. M/s
Xanadu Estate Pvt. Ltd. being the lead
member
of
the
consortium,
whose
eligibility was considered for award of the
project, was not even a party to the
consortium to which the project was
allotted.

9. As per the request of the lead
member of the consortium, separate lease
deeds were executed between Noida
Authority and different members of the
Consortium on 24th October 2011. The
relevant provisions of the lease deed were
as follows:-

C. LAND USE OF SPORTS
CITY

The permissible broad break up
of the total area under SPORTS CITY for
different land uses shall be as under :

A.
Recreational(Sports,
Institutional & Other Facilities and open
areas) not less than 70%

B. Commercial not more than 2
%

C. Residential including Group
Housing (1650 persons per hect. On
residential/group housing area only) 28%
Considering the above land use pattern
following
planning
norms
shall
be
applicable:-

1. Maximum permissible ground
coverage of the entire land shall be 30%

2. Maximum permissible
FAR on total land shall be 1.5

3.
FAR
&
Ground
Coverage in recreational land uses
shall be as per prevailing bye-laws.

That in consideration of the
total premium 10% was to be paid at
the time of allotment and the balance
was to be paid by the Lessee in
instalments on dates specified along
with interest @ 11% per annum
compounded every half yearly from
the date of allotment, on the balance
outstanding
on
timely
payment.
Schedule of payment of instalments
was also give, the first instalments
starting from 4.11.2011 and the
entire payment was to be made by
4.5.2020
 No separate notices for deposit
of the instalment/lease rent was to be
issued by Lessor. The LESSEE was
under the strict obligation that the
due instalments along with interest
were to be deposited on the due date.
 In case of failure to deposit
the due instalment by the due date,
the
LESSOR
may
cancel
the
allotment. However, in exceptional
circumstances, an extension of time
for payment of an instalment could
be permitted subject to payment of
interest @ 14% p.a. (11% normal
interest
+
3%
penal
interest)
compounded half yearly on the
defaulted
amount and
for
the
defaulted period.

A lease of Ninety years on
"AS IS WHERE IS BASIS" was
granted on the terms and conditions
as given below:-

(a)....

(iii) In case of failure to
deposit the due lease rent by the due
date, interest will be charged @ 14%
p.a. (11% normal interest + 3%
penal interest) compounded half
yearly, on the defaulted amount and
for the defaulted period.

(iv) For the purposes of this
document, the date of issue of the
allotment letter shall be treated as the
date of allotment and the date of
318 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
execution of the lease deed shall be
treated as the date of taking over of
possession.

II. ....

(a)
The
lead
member
should
be
the
single
largest
shareholder having at least 30%
shares in the consortium. The
percentage of shareholding of the
lead member shall remain minimum
of
30%
till
the
temporary
occupancy/completion certificate of
at least one phase of the project is
obtained from the Lessor.

(h) The construction of the
building and development on the plot
shall have to be done as per
development
norms,
controls
prescribed under the scheme/building
regulations & directions of the
Lessor and only after the prior
approval of the building plans by the
Lessor.

(a) All the infrastructural
services shall have to be provided by
the lessee within the plot area only.

(i) The Lessee shall be
required to complete the construction
of minimum 15% of the permissible
area
earmarked
for
sports,
institutional & other facilities within
a period of 3 years from the date of
execution of Lease Deed and shall
complete the project in phases
within
5
years.
However,
the
residential
and
commercial
development/construction
may
be
completed in phases within 7 years.
Further more, the lessee has to
develop residential and commercial
component
in
the
project
in
proportion to area earmarked for
recreational
uses.
However,
extension
in
exceptional
circumstances can be granted by
NOIDA, on payment of extension
charges applicable as per prevailing
policy at the time of granting such
extension.
Delays
due
to
encroachment, force majure, legal
issues like stay orders etc. shall be
considered
for
extension.
The
construction on the land shall have to
be
done
as
per
the
controls
prescribed under these Terms and
Conditions
and
the
building
regulations and directions of the
NOIDA.

(j) The lessee shall be
wholly and solely responsible for the
implementation of the Project and
also for ensuring the quality of
development/constructions,
subsequent
maintenance
of
the
building and services, till such time
as the alternate agency for such work
is identified and legally appointed by
the
Lessee
after
prior
written
approval of the LESSOR. The project
may
be
implemented by
lessee
through Special Purpose Company
and/or through its subsidiaries. The
relationship between Special Purpose
Company & its subsidiaries would be
governed by the prevailing law, rules
and regulations. However, mortgage
permission can be accorded to
Special
Purpose
Company
for
implementation of project as per
prevailing rules & regulations of
Lessor.

(l) The lessee can transfer
the whole plot and the buildings
constructed thereon with the prior
permission of the LESSOR, after
payment of transfer charges as the
prevailing policy of the LESSOR.
However, the lessor reserves the right
to
reject
any
such
transfer
2 All. M/S Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
319
application without assigning any
reason whatsoever. In addition to the
transfer charges as per prevailing
policy of the LESSOR, the lessee
shall
also
pay
an
amount
of
Rs.10,000/- towards the processing
fees.

All
the
terms
and
conditions of the brochure, the
allotment, the permission for grant
of transfer, lease deed etc. shall be
binding on the lessee, as well as the
transferee(s).

Change in Constitution will
be permitted as per prevailing policy
of the Lessor and as per terms and
conditions of the brochure of the
scheme.

No transfer charges shall
be applicable if built up space of
commercial plot is transferred within
two years from the date of issuing of
the completion certificate by the
LESSOR. Thereafter, the transfer
charges shall be payable on a prorata basis as applicable. In addition
to the transfer charges, an amount of
Rs.10,000/- shall also be payable
against the processing fee. The lessee
will be permitted to transfer the
built-up space on the fulfillment of
the following conditions :-

(i) The lessee has made full
payment of the plot premium along
with interest thereon and the up-todate lease rent alongwith interest, if
any, due thereon.

(ii) The lease deed as per
rules has been duly executed.

(iii)
The
lessee
has
obtained the building completion
certificate from the LESSOR.

(iv)
The
sublessees/transferees undertake to put
to use the premises for the original
permissible use only and the premises
being
transferred
are
as
per
completion certificate and are not
part of any common area.

(v) The lessee shall also
execute a sub-lease deed between
lessor,
lessee
and
proposed
transferees
(sub-lessees).
The
lessee/sub-lessees shall also ensure
adherence
to
the
building
regulations and directions. All the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
allotment and lease deed shall be
applicable
and
binding
on
transferee/sub-lessees as well.

(vi) The transferees/sublessees shall also be required to pay
pro-rata lease rent as applicable.
The transferees/sub-lessees shall be
required to make the built-up space
functional within one year from the
date
of
sub-lease
and
submit
sufficient documents to the LESSOR
in
proof
thereof.
Thereafter,
extension charges, as applicable,
shall be payable.

(vii) All the terms and
conditions
of
the
brochure,
allotment, permission for grant of
transfer, lease deed etc. shall be
applicable on the lessee as well as
the transferees(sub-lessees).

(viii) The lessee, sub-lessee
are not eligible for any preferential
allotment of the residential plot or
house under various scheme of
NOIDA.

(m) The lessee and sublessees (transferees) shall not use the
Sports City plot for any purpose
other than for which the plot is
320 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
allotted. In case of violation of any
allotment condition, the allotment
shall be liable to be cancelled and
the possession of the premises along
with the structures thereon, if any,
shall be resumed by the LESSOR.

(n) The lessee and sublessee(s)/Transferee(s) will be liable
to pay all rates, taxes, charges and
assessment
of
every
description
imposed by any authority empowered
in this behalf from time to time, in
respect of the plot and the buildings
constructed thereon.

(o) If the lessee and/or sublessee(s)/Transferee(s) fail to deposit
the due money/installment within the
given time or such extended period as
is allowed by the LESSOR or commit
any
breach
of
the
terms
and
conditions as laid down in this
brochure, allotment letter, lease
deed, the allotment/lease may be
cancelled/determined and 30% of the
total premium of the plot or the
premium/instalments deposited till
then along with lease rent, interest,
extension charges etc. deposited,
whichever is less, shall be forfeited in
favour of the LESSOR. Balance
amount, if any, after forfeiting the
amount as indicated above, will be
refunded without interest. Possession
of the plot, along with the structures,
if any, thereon, shall be resumed in
favour of the LESSOR and the lessee
shall not be entitled to claim any
compensation for the same.

(p) The allotment is found
to
be
obtained
by
any
misrepresentation,
concealment,
suppression of any material facts by
the lessee, the allotment of plot will
be cancelled and/or lease will be
determined, as the case may be. In
addition, the entire money deposited
by
the
lessee
and
sublessee(s)/Transferee(s)
shall
be
forfeited and legal action for such
misrepresentation,
concealment,
suppression of material facts shall be
taken.
(Emphasis supplied)

10. Since the possession of the entire
allotted land could not being given, the
allottee made a representation for granting
the benefit of Zero Period from the date of
allotment to the date on which the actual
physical possession has been given. After
deliberation, Noida Authority came to a
conclusion on 16-07-2012, that as per
Clause 42 of the lease deed, the sports city
is an integrated project and unless the
possession of the entire land is given, it is
not possible to start the integrated project
of Sports City. Hence, it agreed to grant the
benefit of Zero Period.

11. The Noida Authority vide letter
dated 09-08-2012, informed the allottees that
the Board of NOIDA has taken a further
decision in its meeting held on 25th July,
2012 that on handing over of possession of
80% of allotted land (80% of 7,25,500 Sq.
mtrs .i.e. 5,82,000 Sq. mtrs.), the issue will be
treated as closed since the original terms of
allotment provides variation of 20% of the
allotted land and the allottees have consented
to this condition. And, thereafter, allotted the
balance land in the adjacent sector which was
abutting to the already allotted plot.

12. The Noida Authority vide its letter
dated 16-09-2014 permitted subdivision of
Plot No.SC-01/C, Sector 79, allotted to. M/s
Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd. which
had only 2,50,027 Sqm, as per the
following:
2 All. M/S Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
321
Name of the
Company

Area
(Sq.m
trs)
Plot
No.
Date
Title
Document
M/S Three C
Green
Developers Pvt
Ltd
SPC 1,66,4
59.30
SC01/C
17.11.
14
Balance
land
Piyush
IT
Solutions
P
Ltd.
(
Sublessee)

28,00
0.00
SC01/C3
17.11.
14
Sub Lease
Deed
Three C Infra
Creations Pvt
Ltd.
(
Sublessee)

24,00
0.00
SC01/C4
17.11.
14
Sub Lease
Deed
Three C City
Developers Pvt
Ltd
(
Sublessee)

20,00
0.00
SC01/C5
11.12.
14
Sub Lease
Deed
Water-ePearlinfotech
Pvt
Ltd.
(
Sublessee)

24,00
0.00
SC01/C6
17.11.
14
Sub Lease
Deed
Three
C
Builders
Pvt
Ltd
(
Sublessee)

16,00
0.00
SC01/C7
11.12.
14
Sub Lease
Deed
Three
C
Builders
Pvt
Ltd
(Sublessee)

25,75
0.00
SC01/C8
11.12.
14
Sub Lease
Deed

13. Soon thereafter the petitioner No.1
again requested the Noida Authority to sub
divide the plot No. SC-1/C2 into 2 parts in
favour of its 100% subsidiary company M/s
Robust Innovations Pvt. Ltd. This request
was accepted vide letter dated 03-10-2012
on the same terms and conditions of
brochure of the scheme and lease deed,
and the allotment letter. Accordingly, a
correction deed was executed between the
Noida Authority and the petitioner on 1910-2012, giving a fresh payment of
Schedule. According to which the entire
instalments were to be paid by the
allottees
in
between
4.11.2011
to
4.5.2021.

14. The petitioner on behalf of the
consortium applied for sanction of the
integrated map for the development of the
sports city SC-01, Sector-78, and 79, which
was approved on 16.11.2012, wherein the
allottees
themselves
divided
the
responsibilities, and assigned themselves
their
parts
for
the
development
of
residential, commercial and sports facility.

15. The Noida Authority in its 179th
meeting on 27-05-2013 resolved that the
balance land where possession could not be
given, in lieu thereof 48,520 square meters
of land of the adjacent sector be allotted.
Accordingly, for the balance land a letter
was issued on 21-06-2013, allotting the
48,520 square meters of land. With the
allotment of this land, the mark of 80 per
cent of the area for the sports city was
achieved.

16. Noida Authority by now had
divided the entire sports city of sector 78 &
79 into various plots and executed a lease
deed to various companies who were 100%
subsidiaries of the allottee companies. A
revised integrated plan for development of
the sports city was filed by the petitioner as
well as on behalf of the other consortium
partners, as per which they divided
amongst themselves the responsibility of
developing the entire sports city (which
included sports facilities, residential and
commercial part of the project). This map
was approved by the Noida authority on
16.06.2014 wherein each sub lessee had
separately taken up the responsibility of
developing residential, commercial as well
as sports facilities. The obligation of
various companies for completion of
residential, commercial and sports facilities
were earmarked in the approved map and
were as follows:-
Plot No. SC-01, 01, Sector 78, 79 & SC -
01/A&B, Sector-101, NOIDA (U.P.)
322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
S.N
o.
Comp
any,
Their
Plot
No. &
(Plot
area
given
to
each
comp
any in
sq.
mtr.)

FAR
to be
devel
oped
by
each
com
pany
in
sq.
mt.
PROPO
SED
GROU
ND
COVER
AGE
(SQ.M.)
PROPOSED FAR (SQM)
SP
OR
TS
(IN
SQ
M)
R
ES
ID
E
N
TI
A
L
(I
N
SQ
M)
(A
)
CO
MM
ERC
IAL
(IN
SQ
M)
(B)
SPOR
TS
(IN
SQM)
(C)
RES
IDE
NTI
AL
(IN
SQ
M)
(P)
CO
MM
ERC
IAL
(IN
SQ
M)
(Q)
S
P
O
R
T
S
(
I
N

S
Q
M
)
(
R
)
1
M/S
SEQU
EL
BUIL
DCO
N
PVT.
LTD.
SC01/A1
,
SEC79
(50,00
0.00)

1,37,
500.
00
350
00.0
0
15
00
0.0
0
0.00 0.00
1375
00.0
0
0.00 0
.
0
0
3
M/S
ARE
NA
SUPE
RSTR
UCT
URES
PVT.
LTD.
SC01/A2
,
1,37,
500.
00
350
00.0
0
15
00
0.0
0
0.00 0.00
1375
00.0
0
0.00 0
.
0
0
SEC79,
(50,00
0.00)
4
M/S
SEQU
EL
BUIL
DING
CON
CEPT
Pvt.
Ltd.
SC01/B1
,
SEC79,
(24,00
0.00)
66,0
00.0
0
168
00.0
0
67
35.
00
465.
00
0.00
6534
0.00
680.
00
0
.
0
0
5
M/S
GOLF
GREE
N
BUIL
DCO
N
PVT.
LTD.
SC01/B2
,
SEC79,
(24,00
0.00)
0.00 168
00.0
0
72
00.
00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0
.
0
0
6
M/S
THRE
E
C
GREE
N
DEV
ELOP
ERS
PVT.
LTD.
SC01/C1
,
SEC79,
(3,04,
209.3
0)
2,57,
256.
95
198
390.
51
10
11
01.
78
417.
01
4300.
00
2508
56.9
5
400.
00
6
0
0
0
.
0
0
2 All. M/S Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
323
9
M/S
ROB
UST
INNO
VATI
ONS
PVT.
LTD.
SC01/C2
,
SEC79,
(8000.
00)
12,0
00.0
0
560
0.00
24
00.
00
0.00 0.00
1200
0.00
0.00 0
.
0
0
10
M/S
KIND
LE
DEV
ELOP
ERS
PVT.
LTD.
SC01/D1
,
SEC79,
(40,00
0.00)
78,7
14.0
0
280
00.0
0
11
74
0.0
0
260.
00
0.00
7781
4.00
900.
00
0
.
0
0
11
M/S
GOLF
GREE
N
RESI
DEN
CY
PVT.
LTD.
SC01/D2
,
SEC79,
(10,00
0.00)

22,5
00.0
0
700
0.00
28
30.
00
170.
00
0.00
2233
0.00
170.
00
0
.
0
0
12
A/S
GOLF
GREE
N
ESTA
TES
56,2
50.0
0
175
00.0
0
72
50.
00
250.
00
0.00
5575
0.00
500.
00
0
.
0
0
PVT.
LTD.
SC01/D3
,
SEC79,
(25,00
0.00)

13
M/S
GOLF
GREE
N
MAN
SION
S
PVT.
LTD.
SC01/D4
,
SEC79,
(25,00
0.00)
62,5
00.0
0
175
00.0
0
71
75.
00
325.
00
0.00
6181
2.50
687.
50
0
.
0
0
14
M/S
XAN
ADU
REAL
CON
PVT.
LTD.
SC01/E1
,
SEC79,
(40,00
0.00)

1,10,
000.
00
280
00.0
0
11
68
0.0
0
300.
00
0.00
1089
98.0
0
1002
.00
0
.
0
0
15
M/S
GOLF
GREE
N
INFR
A
PVT.
LTD.
SC55,0
00.0
0
140
00.0
0
57
95.
00
205.
00
0.00
5479
5.00
205.
50
0
.
0
0
324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
01/E2
,
SEC79,
(20,00
0.00)

16
M/S
GOLF
GREE
N
SUPE
RSTR
UCT
URES
PVT.
LTD.
SC01/E3
,
SEC79,
(20,00
0.00)

55,0
00.0
0
140
00.0
0
50
00.
00
400.
00
0.00
5445
0.00
550.
00
0
.
0
0
17
M/S
XAN
ADU
INFR
ATEC
H
PVT.
LTD.
SC01,
SEC78,
(14,27
2.50)

4,28
1.75
999
0.75
0.0
0
0.00 4781.
75
0.00 0.00 4
2
8
1
.
7
5
18
M/S
THRE
E
C
GREE
N
DEV
ELOP
ERS
PVT.
LTD.
0.00 191
70.0
0
0.0
0
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0
.
0
0
SC01/A,
SEC101,
(19,17
0.00)

19
M/S
THRE
E
C
GREE
N
DEV
ELOP
ERS
PVT.
LTD.
SC01/B,
SEC101,
(29,35
0.00)
0.00 293
30.0
0
0.0
0
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0
.
0
0

PROPOSE
D
DEVELOP
MENT
7,03,001.80
10,5
4,50
2.70
----- ----
--
----- 28.38 ----- 5074
.00
-
-
-
-
-
PERMISSI
BLE
DEVELOP
MENT
7,03,001.80
10,5
4,50
2.70
492
161.
26
19
88
40.
50
1406
0.01
5881.
75
8520
38.1
8
5624
.01
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SPORTS FACILITIES
SUBSIDIARIES PLOT
NO.
FACILITIES
TO
BE
IN
LAND
PARCEL
MIN.
AMOUNT TO
BE SPENT
(IN CRORE)
M/S THREE C
GREEN
DEVELOPERS
PVT. LTD.
SC01/C1
GOLF
COURSE
(9
HOLE)
40.00
M/S
ARENA SCMULTIPURP
10.00
2 All. M/S Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
325
SUPER
STRUCTURE
PVT. LTD.
01/A2 OSE
PLAYFIELD
M/S THREE C
GREEN
DEVELOPERS
PVT. LTD.
SC01/C1
TENNIS
CENTRE
35.00
M/S THREE C
GREEN
DEVELOPERS
PVT. LTD.
SC01/C1
SWIMMING
CENTRE
50.00
M/S THREE C
GREEN
DEVELOPERS
PVT. LTD.
SC01/C1
PROSHOPS/FOOD
AND
BEVERAGE
30.00
M/S THREE C
GREEN
DEVELOPERS
PVT. LTD.
SC01/C1
IT
CENTRE/AD
MINISTRATI
ON/MEDIA
CENTRE
65.00
M/S THREE C
GREEN
DEVELOPERS
PVT. LTD.
SC01/C1
INDOOR
MULTIPURP
OSE
HALL,
SPORTS
HALL
INCLUDING
GYMNASTIC,
TABLE
TENNIS,
SQUASH,
BASKET
BALL,
VOLLEY
BALL
BADMINTON
,
ROCK
CLIMBING
30.00
M/S THREE C
GREEN
DEVELOPERS
PVT. LTD.
SC01/C1
CRICKET
ACADEMY
50.00
ALL
-
INTERNAL
ROADS AND
PARKS
25.00
M/S XANADU
INFRATECH
PVT. LTD.
SC01,
SEC78
HOSPITAL/S
ENIOR
LIVING/MED
ICINE
CENTRE
60.00
ALL
-
CIRCULATIO
N
SPACES,
15.00
CARPETING,
UTILITIES
ETC.
17. The petitioner again sought
benefit of Zero Period, which was granted
vide letter dated 30.12.2026 on 5,50,729.30
square meters of land parcel up to 31-012017. The petitioner further submitted that
even after the additional land 48,520 square
meters was allotted, still there were certain
encroachments and the actual physical
possession of the plots were not handed
over free from all encumbrances.
18. After this Zero Period Order,
vide its letter dated 13-01-2017, the Noida
Authority issued a revised payment plan for
the petitioner's subleased plot according to
which the liability of the allottee for
payment to Noida Authority was shifted to
start from six months of Zero Period i.e.
from 31st January 2017, thus the revised
payment plan started payment from 31st
July 2017 to 31st January 2025. This
fixation of zero period and the payment
plan given by Noida Authority was not
contemporaneously challenged.
19. The Noida Authority, vide
letter dated 08-01-2018, further allotted
24,408 square meters extra land. With that
the total area allotted to the Petitioner
became 7,27,500 square meters.
20.
The
petitioner
made
a
representation claiming that the entire land
for the sports city was not allotted free
from encumbrances, and the possession of
the allotted land was also not given. And
hence the Noida authority should also not
ask for the payment of the due instalments.
Since no decision was taken by the Noida
authority on this representation, hence, the
petitioner has filed the instant writ petition
seeking following reliefs:-
326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 "i. To issue a writ order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondent no.3 to hand
over
the
encumbrance
free
Land
comprising of Plot Nos. SC-01/A2, SC01/B1, SC-01/C1, SC-01/C3, SC-01/C4,
SC-01/C5, SC-01/C6, SC-01/C7, SC-01/C8,
Sec 79 and Plot No. 01/A and Plot No.
01/B, Sector 101, and Plot no. SC-01,
Sector 78, Noida, as allotted and leased to
the petitioner by the Respondent No. 3
which was acquired under the land
Acquisition Act and already handed over
by the Additional District Magistrate (Land
Acquisition) to the respondent no.3.
 i (a)To issue a writ order or
direction in the nature of certiorari calling
for record and quashing the impugned
notice dated 21-08-2019 and 12-09-2019.
 ii. To issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction in the nature of
mandamus to restrain the Respondent No.3
from levying or collecting any lease rent
from 01.02.2017 till date.
 iii. To issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction in the nature of
mandamus to restrain Respondent No.3 to
levy or collect any interest or penal interest
on the land premium from 01.02.2017 till
date
 iv. To issue any other order of
direction which the Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of
the case.
 V. To award the cost of the
petition to this petitioner."
21. It seems the petitioner No.1 had
raised some loan by way of issuing of
debentures. Petitioner has not been able to
service this debt. As a result, the Debenture
trustee has filed an application under Section
7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,
20162 during the pendency of this writ
petition. The application under Section 7 of
the IB Code, 2016 has been admitted by
NCLT and an IRP has been appointed, who
stepped into the shoes of the petitioner.

D. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
THE PETITIONERS

22. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the Consortium was allotted
7,27,500 square meters of land vide
Allotment letter dated 04-05-2011 for the
development of Sports City and the
possession was given for 5,92,300 square
meters only.

23. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that Noida has issued a
scheme
and
entered
into
contractual
obligations with various parties without
having requisite land under the said
allotment. The Scheme was launched in 2011
which was required to be developed 100% by
2017/ 2019. But the fact is that the work
could not be initiated due to non-availability
of land. The entire land has still not been
made available by Noida. Noida has
facilitated sub-lease and sub-divisions of the
total project area. However, the Sports City
being an integrated and joint obligation of all
the lessees, subsidiaries and sub-divided land
owners should be viewed as one holistic
project from the development view point. All
the stakeholders viz. allottees of Noida Sports
City -79, sub- allottees, sub lessees /
subsidiaries should be directed to contribute
for the amount required for development of
Sports in ratio of FAR being developed by
them. Noida should agree for a conciliatory
process
under
the
aegis
of
senior
mediator/conciliator considering the scheme
of Sports City and contributions to be taken
by interested parties so that Sports City under
the scheme of 2011 can be given full effect.

24. Learned counsel for the petitioner
argued that the Noida Authority, till today,
2 All. M/S Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
327
has not been able to provide contiguous
land parcel to the petitioner. The sports
city, as envisaged in the Sports city
scheme,
cannot
be
developed
in
a
piecemeal.

25. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that the Noida was
obligated to provide possession of the
entire land, construct, develop and provide
the required infrastructure, access and
approach road to the Sports City, which has
not yet been developed by Noida.

26. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further asserted that certain land parcels,
specially Khasra No. 770, over which such
infrastructure, access and approach road for
the Sports City is to be constructed by the
Authority is yet to be acquired by the
Noida Authority. The Authority has not
taken
any
action
for
acquisition,
construction and development of any such
infrastructure, access and approach road to
the Sports City Project.

27. Learned counsel for the petitioner
also submitted that the possession of
contiguous land could not be given to the
petitioner till date. Khasra Nos.