# M/s Xanadu Estates Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P.& Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 2 ILRA 612
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-02-24
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 26640 of 2021
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Prashant Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-xanadu-estates-pvt-ltd-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53013
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

Law - Challenge to the inaction of NOIDA
Authority and claim for multiple reliefs
relating
to
Sports
City-II
Scheme
-
Constitution of India - Article 243Q - Lead
Member - Consortium - Zero Period -
Integrated Township Project - Once the
lead member opted out and ceased to hold
the minimum mandated shareholding of
30%, it lost the right to seek any relief
under the Scheme.(Para - 60)

Sports City-II Scheme launched by NOIDA
in 2011 for integrated development of
sports and ancillary facilities in Sectors
78,
79
&
150
-
Land
allotted
to
consortium led by petitioner - Subdivision approved at petitioner's request -
Petitioner
subsequently
opted
out
-
Despite
holding
no
share
or
stake,
petitioner
sought
reliefs
including
extension of Zero Period, approval of
revised Master Plan, enhancement of FAR,
and Rs. 200 crore compensation -hence
petition. (Paras 2 to 19)

HELD: - Petitioner having opted out of the
project and holding no share or interest in the
development of Sports City, has no locus standi
to file the writ petition. Reliefs claimed including
rescheduling of dues, FAR enhancement, and
compensation cannot be granted in writ
jurisdiction. (Paras - 60, 63 to 66)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

## Text

_Characters 0–39,748 of 46,556. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39748 for what follows._

612 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

186.
NCLT/NCLAT
may
also
consider the fact that the project was an
integrated project and has to be developed
as per the objects of the sports city and the
IRP while choosing the developer should
keep in mind the development of the
project as an integrated project.
187. The offence of financial fraud
comes within the ambit of sub-clause (u),
(v), (y), (za) of Clause 2 of Chapter 1 of the
PMLA Act. Since the offence committed
by the promoters of the petitioner company
falls under the definition of the schedule
offence under PMLA Act, hence the
Enforcement Directorate61 is directed to
proceed
against
all
the
accused
directors/promoters/designated officers and
all other key managerial persons, who were
directly or indirectly in control of the
petitioner's company, and who were
involved
in
misappropriation/siphoning
away the money from the Company. The
E.D. is directed to lodge Enforcement Case
Information Report (ECIR) against the
Director/Management/Key Personnel, who
are directly or indirectly in control of the
petitioner company and are responsible in
diversion of funds.
188. We further direct that the E.D.
shall investigate whether the syphoning/
diversion of funds have taken place by
transferring money from the company to
personal accounts or to other companies
wherein
the
promoters
have
interest
directly or indirectly, or any transaction to
benefit
third
party,
which
includes
transferring of the assets on under valued
price or to give preference to certain
creditors in repayment, or any fraudulent
connivance where the assets had been sold
below the market price.
189. The E.D. shall also investigate
as to whether there was any bogus
transaction
or
transaction
in
shell
companies or drawing hefty salary by the
Directors or burdening the companies with
personal or other expenses not associated
with the company.
190. The E.D. is further directed to
investigate on all possibilities which may
have
been
undertaken
by
the
above
personnels to syphon off the funds. The E.D.
shall make all endeavours to find out the trail
of syphoned/misappropriated money so that
the same may be brought back into the
company and with that the outstanding dues
of NOIDA Authority, State Government,
additional compensation to the farmers and
the other dues may be paid off.
191.
Under
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, we are of the
considered opinion that no reprieve can be
accorded to the petitioner in the present
matter. Accordingly, the instant writ
petition stands disposed of with the
aforesaid directions.
192. Registrar (Compliance) is
directed to send a copy of this judgment to
the learned NCLT, Delhi and the Director
of the E.D. for information and necessary
compliance forthwith.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 612
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. 26640 of 2021

M/s Xanadu Estates Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
2 All. M/s Xanadu Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P.& Ors.
613
Prateek Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Kaushalendra Nath Singh

(A) Urban Development and Administrative
Law - Challenge to the inaction of NOIDA
Authority and claim for multiple reliefs
relating
to
Sports
City-II
Scheme
-
Constitution of India - Article 243Q - Lead
Member - Consortium - Zero Period -
Integrated Township Project - Once the
lead member opted out and ceased to hold
the minimum mandated shareholding of
30%, it lost the right to seek any relief
under the Scheme.(Para - 60)

Sports City-II Scheme launched by NOIDA
in 2011 for integrated development of
sports and ancillary facilities in Sectors
78,
79
&
150
-
Land
allotted
to
consortium led by petitioner - Subdivision approved at petitioner's request -
Petitioner
subsequently
opted
out
-
Despite
holding
no
share
or
stake,
petitioner
sought
reliefs
including
extension of Zero Period, approval of
revised Master Plan, enhancement of FAR,
and Rs. 200 crore compensation -hence
petition. (Paras 2 to 19)

HELD: - Petitioner having opted out of the
project and holding no share or interest in the
development of Sports City, has no locus standi
to file the writ petition. Reliefs claimed including
rescheduling of dues, FAR enhancement, and
compensation cannot be granted in writ
jurisdiction. (Paras - 60, 63 to 66)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra
Tripathi, J.
&
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar, J.)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
S.No.
HEADING
Page nos.
1
Facts of the case
01-10
2
Arguments
on
behalf
of
petitioner
10-12
3
Arguments
on
behalf
of
respondents
12-17
4
Analysis
&
Conclusions
18-21
1.
Heard
Sri
Amit
Shukla,
Advocate holding brief of Sri Prakeek
Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Mohan
Srivastava and Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari,
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
Staterespondents and Sri Manish Goyal, learned
Senior
Advocate
assisted
by
Sri
Kaushalendra Nath Singh and Ms. Anjali
Gokhlani,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent-NOIDA.
FACTS OF THE CASE
2.
New
Okhla
Industrial
Development Authority1 sometime in the
year 2011 floated a scheme known as
"Sports City-II" 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 hec. in Sector 78, 79 and
another in Sector 150 of NOIDA. The
reserve price for the scheme was set at
Rs.11,500/- per square metre. The price
was purposely kept low as the developer
was supposed to create sports facilities over
70% of the entire land allotted to them,
which was not marketable, and on top of it,
the developer had to infuse his funds to
develop the same. In the remaining 30% of
the land, (28% was meant for Group
614 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Housing and 2% for commercial purpose).
The
scheme
clearly
stated
that
the
population density in this Sports City
would be 1650 people per hectare. In this
scheme, maximum permissible Floor Area
Ratio2 of the total land was 1.5. 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 brochure of the
Sports City laid down conditions for the
development of Sports City. The relevant
part of the brochure is 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.
 In case of Consortium, the
members shall submit a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) conveying their intent to
jointly apply for the scheme(s), and in case
the plot is allotted to them, the MOA shall
clearly define the role and responsibility of
each member in the consortium,
 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 installments 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.
 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
sub-divide 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
2 All. M/s Xanadu Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P.& Ors.
615
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."

3. In response to the advertisement,
only two companies applied for this project
first being M/s Wave Pvt. Ltd, which had
applied at the reserved price and the second
was a consortium of petitioner-company
namely M/s Xanadu Estates Pvt. Ltd.,
(Lead Member) and 8 other companies
(being
the
Relevant
Members).
The
consortium
members
and
their
shareholdings in the consortium were as
follows-
Sl.No.
Members
Status
% of share
holding of
lead
and
relevant
member in
the
consortium
1
M/S Xanadu Estates
Pvt. Ltd.
Lead
30%
2
M/S Meriton Infotech
Pvt. Ltd
Relevant 5%
3
M/S
Sutlej
Agro
Products Ltd
Relevant 5%
4
M/S
Xanadu
Infradevelopers Pvt.
Ltd.
Relevant 10%
5
M/S Xanadu Infatech
Pvt. Ltd.
Relevant 10%
6
M/S Xanadu Realcon
Pvt. Ltd
Relevant 10%
7
M/S Sequel Buildcon
Pvt. Ltd
Relevant 10%
8
M/S Sequel Building
concept Pvt. Ltd.
Relevant 10%
9
M/S
Kindle
Developers Pvt. Ltd
Relevant 10%
Total:
100%

4. M/s Xanadu Estates Pvt. Ltd.,
which was the Lead Member of the
consortium,
was
incorporated
on
10.03.2011, wherein the promoters were
Mr. Nirmal Singh, Mr.Vidur Bhardwaj and
Mr. Surpreet Singh Suri. The shareholdings
of the petitioner's company was with M/S
Three C Universal Developers (99.99 per
cent share) and Mr. Supreet Singh Suri was
nominee of M/S Three C Universal
Developers (.01%).

5. After the evaluation of the bids, the
bid of the consortium led by the petitioner
company was found to be compliant. An
Acceptance Letter was issued by the Noida
Authority on 28.03.2011 and thereafter, the
Allotment-cum-Reservation
Letter
was
issued on 04.05.2011 in favour of the
consortium,
wherein
7,27,500
square
metres of land in Plot No. SC-01-01, Sector
78
and
79
were
reserved
for
the
development of the Sports City by the
consortium.

6. The petitioner company being a
Lead Member of the Consortium moved a
letter on 11.10.2011 requesting the NOIDA
authorities to sub-divide the entire sports
city in favour of the relevant members of
the consortium.

7. The request was accepted by the
Noida
Authority
vide
letter
dated
24.10.2011 and the project was allotted to
the members of the consortium. The letter
616 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dated 24.10.2011 is reproduced below for
ready reference:

" New Okhla Industrial Development
Authority
Main Administrative Building,
Sector-VI, NOIDA-201301
No. NOIDA/Commercial/2010
Dated : 24 October, 2011
M/s Xanadu Estates Pvt. Ltd.
(Consortium)
C-23, Greater Kailash Enclave,
Part-I,
New Delhi-48
Sub : Sub-Division of Sports City
Plot No. SC-01-01 Sector - 78 &
79 under Scheme No. 2010-11
(Sports City-II)
Dear Sir,
With reference to your letter dated
11th October, 2011 on the above
subject, I have been directed to
inform you that in view of the
terms and conditions of the
brochures of the scheme, your
request has been accepted by the
competent authority to sub divide
the aforesaid plot in six (6) parts
in the following manner ;
Sub division of plot No. SC-01
Sector 79 in 5 parts & Plot No.
SC-01 Sector 78 which is the part
allotted area total 712981.00
sqmts of plot no.SC-01 Sector 79
Noida i.e.
(1)
SC-01/A
admeasuring
1,00,000 Sqm.
(2) SC-01/B admeasuring 48,000
Sqm.
(3)
SC-01/C
admeasuring
2,50,027 Sqm.
(4)
SC-01/D
admeasuring
1,00,000 Sqm. and
(5) SC-01 Sector-78 14,272.50
Sqm. which is the part allotted
area total 14,519.00 sqmts of plot
no.SC-01
Sector
-78
Noida
Simultaneously in view of the
terms and conditions of the
brochures of the scheme, the SPC
for Plot No.SC-01/C, Sector-79
measuring
2,50,0207.50
Sqm.
Namely M/s Three C Green
Developers Pvt. Ltd. Consisting of
consortium
member
(1)
M/s
Xanadu Estates Pvt. Ltd. - 62.5%
(2) M/s Meriton Infotech Pvt. Ltd.-
18.50% (3) M/s Sutlej Agro
Products
Ltd.-9.5%
(4)
M/s
Xanadu Infra Developers Pvt.
Ltd.-9.50%-2,50,027
Sqm.,
is
approved for execution of lease
deeds.
Execution of lease deeds of sub
divided plot No. SC-01/A Sector -
79 in favour of relevant member
namely M/s Sequel Buildcon Pvt.
Ltd. - 1,00,000 Sqm is approved.
Execution of lease deeds of sub
divided plot No. SC-01/B Sector -
79 in favour of relevant member
namely M/s Sequel Buildcon Pvt.
Ltd. - 48,000 Sqm is approved.
Execution of lease deeds of sub
divided plot No. SC-01/D Sector -
79 in favour of relevant member
namely M/s Kindle Developers
Pvt. Ltd. - 1,00,000 Sqm is
approved.
Execution of lease deeds of sub
divided plot No.SC-01/E Sector -
79 in favour of relevant member
namely M/s Xanadu Realcon Pvt.
Ltd. - 80,000 Sqm is approved.
2 All. M/s Xanadu Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P.& Ors.
617
Execution of lease deeds of sub
divided plot No.SC-01 Sector -78
in the name of relevant member
M/s Xanadu Infratech Pvt. Ltd. -
14,272.50 Sqm, which is the part
allotted area total 14519.00 sqmts
of plot no.SC-01 Sector -78 Noida
is approved.
Accordingly
the
calculation
details of above plots are being
enclosed.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Manager (Commercial)"

8. Separate lease deeds were executed
by the Noida authority with these six sublessees on 24.10.2011. However, one of the
condition of the lease deed was that the
lead member should have at least 30 per
cent share in the consortium and the
percentage
of
shareholding
till
the
temporary
occupancy
or
completion
certificate of at least first phase, is granted
to the lessors.

9. The Noida Authority for some
reason could not hand over the possession
of the entire land of 7,27,500 square
metres,
hence,
the
allottee
made
a
representation to the authority to grant the
benefit of Zero period. The possession of
the entire land was given except 48,520
square
metres,
as
there
was
some
encroachment.

10. The Noida Authority in its 177th
meeting of the Board held on 27.05.2013
resolved that the balance land of which
possession could not be given in lieu
thereof, 48,520 square meters of land of the
adjacent sectors may be allotted to the
allottee. Thereafter, 48,520 square meters
of land in the adjacent Sector 101 was
allotted and a notice for allotting the same
was also issued to the allottees on
21.06.2013. With this allotment 80 per cent
of the area offered in the sports city project
has been achieved with the effect that the
minimum requirement for project was
achieved.

11. The allottees/SPC collectively
applied for the approval of a master layout
plan for the development of the sports city
in Sectors 78 and 79. The plan was
approved on June 16, 2014.

12. However, the Noida Authority
vide its letter dated 30.12.2016 granted
benefit of Zero period upto 31.01.2017 for
an area of 3,24,729.30 square metres.
While granting the benefits, the Noida
Authority made it clear that no further
benefit would be accorded to the allottees.
The Noida Authority further issued a
revised payment plan for the plot allotted to
the sub-lessee. The effect of the shifting
was that the date of making payment of the
dues were shifted and the payment
schedule started w.e.f. 31.07.2017 to 3101-2025.

13. It is claimed by the petitioner
company that after the land was allotted in
Sector 101, the representatives went to take
possession of the land and found that the
land was still in possession of the farmers
and there was large scale agitation, hence
the possession could not be handed over to
the petitioner company.

14. The petitioner submitted a revised
Master Plan for the sports city project with
an FSI of 2.0, along with a letter dated
October 17, 2018, and payment for the
additional FSI is also stated to have been
made. However, the approval of this plan is
still pending with the Noida Authority.

15. It transpires that there was some
report of scam in development of sports
city, hence, the entire issue was referred to
Comptroller and Auditor General3 for
618 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
evaluation. The CAG submitted a report,
which was shocking and revealed the entire
scam. It mentions as to how the Noida
Authority and the State Government had
suffered a huge loss amounting to Rs.9000
crores, as Noida Authority while making
the scheme had done wrong pricing of the
Sports City. As per the brochure only
residential and commercial plots could
have been divided but the Noida Authority
sub-divided entire plots, which were
earmarked for Sports City as well. Bids of
the allottees were not screened and the
turnover of the candidates were also not
considered before allotting the plot. The
Lead Member having the highest share was
ousted from the project completely and
thereafter, the allotment was done to
various
other
companies,
which
individually could not have qualified in the
financial bid evaluation. By adopting such
dubious methodology, the Noida Authority
had resultantly allotted the plots to those,
who were not even entitled to apply
individually.

16. On receipt of the report of the
CAG, the Board of Noida had a meeting on
18-01-2021 (201st Board Meeting) in which
it was resolved that in order to complete the
sports facilities in the Sports City, a
Committee should be formed, which would
look into the situation and put a report in
the next Board meeting and stayed any
further steps to be taken in the Sports City
including revalidation of the maps. After
the CAG report, NOIDA froze all the
activities in the Sports City and referred the
matter to the State Government for
direction and guidance as to what has to be
done.

17. The Committee made a report and
on the basis of the report, the 202nd meeting
was held on 26.07.2021 in which it was
resolved that there was no further subdivision in the sports city and no
revalidation of the map until further orders
and referred the matter to the State
Government
for
its
guidance
and
directions.

18. After the CAG report, looking into
the gravity of the situation, a Public
Accounts
Committee
comprising
of
members of Legislative Assembly was
constituted to look into the issue.

19. The petitioners once again made a
representation on 11.08.2021 for approval
of the revised Master-Plan and grant
benefit of Zero period. Since no action has
been taken on the representation made by
the petitioner neither revised master plan
was sanctioned nor the benefit of zero
period was granted. Hence, aggrieved by
the inaction of the Noida Authority, the
petitioner has filed the instant writ petition
seeking the following reliefs:-

"i. To issue a writ order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the Respondent No. 3 to declare
the zero period from 01.02.2017 till the
date of handing over the actual, vacant &
complete physical possession with regards
to land admeasuring 3,24,729.30 sq. mtrs.
out of the total subject land admeasuring
3,63,409.80 sq. mtrs, situated at Sector 78,
79 and 101, Noida, for which Zero Period
has been granted only from 04.05.2011 to
31.01.2017 by the Respondent No. 3;

ii. To issue a writ order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the Respondent No. 3 to declare
the zero period from 04.05.2011 till the
date of handing over the actual, vacant &
complete physical possession with regards
to land admeasuring 38,680 sq. mts. out of
the subject land admeasuring 3,63,409.80
sq. mtrs. situated at Sector 78, 79 and 101,
2 All. M/s Xanadu Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P.& Ors.
619
Noida for which,no Zero Period has been
granted by the Respondent No. 3;

iii. To issue a writ order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the Respondent No. 3 to expedite
the approval of the revised Master Plan
with original FAR of 1.5 with respect to the
Sports City filed vide Application dated
10.09.2020 by the Petitioner and also to
provide such other approvals/sanctions/
clarifications in respect of our Sports City
as may be required from time to time under
law for the construction and development
of the projects;

iv. To issue a writ order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the Respondent No.3 to grant
additional FS1 of 2.00 to the Petitioner
with respect to Sports City Project in terms
of letter dated 17.10.2018by the Petitioner
and subsequently add the same to the
revised Master Plan of the Sports City
Project.

v. To issue a writ order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the Respondent No. 3 to extend
the period of construction and completion
of the Project by equivalent period of such
Zero Period without any payment of the
extension fees/charges in respect of the
development of recreational/ residential/
commercial area on the Subject Land till
date of grant of actual & complete physical
possession of the Subject Land;

vi. To issue a writ order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the Respondents not to levy or
collect any lease rent and interest on lease
premium from the date of the lease/
allotment on account of grant of Zero
Period approval till the date of grant of
actual & complete physical possession of
the Subject Land;

vii. To issue, a writ order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the Respondent No. 3 to adjust
the principal and interest amount deposited
by the Peritioner during 04.05.2011
tilldate, against future installments in
respect of the Subject Land;

viii. To issue a writ, order or
direction
in
the
nature
MANDMUS
directing the respondents to provide to the
Petitioner, a restructuring of the repayment
schedule so that amount is paid to Noida
Authority in terms of reported order dt.
10.06.2020 and 10.07.2020 by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in CWP 940/2017 in the
Amrapali Batch matters as against the
allotment of the Subject Land in question;

ix. To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of CERTIORARI
preventing the Respondent Authorities from
taking any coercive action against the
Petitioner with respect to the legal right of
the Petitioner over the Subject Land in
question;

x. To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature MANDAMUS.
directing the Respondents to pay punitive
damages and compensation to the tune of
Rs.200 Crores to the Petitioner which
includes the interest cost paid by the
Petitioner(borrower) on the loan taken
from the lender and also for loss of
business on account of avoidable litigation
and the consequent loss of reputation and
goodwill
on
account
of
failure
of
Respondents to hand over the entire vacant
physical possession of the land is question
to the Petitioner for competition of the
project.

xi. To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature MANDAMUS,
directing the Respondent No. 1- State of
U.P. to constitute an Enquiry Committee
620 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
comprising of three members to conduct an
enquiry into the illegalities, violations and
abdication of statutory duties by the
Respondent No. 3, Noida Authority and to
submit a report to this Hon'ble Court
during the pendency of the present writ
petition,

xii. To issue any other order of
direction which the Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of
the case.

xiii. To award the cost of the
petition to this Petitioner."
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
THE PETITIONER

20. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that right from the inception
there was a problem with the development
of sports city. The Noida Authority had not
acquired the land and were not in
possession of the land. Still they announced
the sports city project and after the
petitioner being allotted, the possession of
the land could not be given in time. With
the result the project got delayed and
because of the delay the petitioner had
suffered huge financial loss.

21. At the time of execution of sale
deed, no physical possession was handed
over to the petitioner company and only
paper possession was given. When the
petitioner company went to take the
possession of the land, they had to face the
agitation of the farmers. Apart from it, a
number of petitions were filed in the High
Court qua the acquisition of the land by the
farmers, which were pending adjudication.

22. The petitioner company further
submitted that the entire sports city was an
integrated project and such a large scale
development cannot happen in a piece meal
unless
and
until
the
entire
vacant
possession was handed over to the
petitioner; the development of the Sports
City could not commence.

23. The learned counsel submitted that
even the land allotted in Sector 101 in lieu
of the encroached land of Sectors 78 and 79
was also not free from encumbrances.

24. The Zero period policy of the
Noida Authority was applicable for all
those land, where the Noida Authority had
failed to carry out its obligations like
handing over the physical possessions or in
providing the necessary infrastructures,
which they were supposed to provide by
them or in cases where there was any such
injunction or stay granted by the Court.

25. Further, the development of a large
spread project cannot happen in piece-meal
unless entire vacant physical possession of
the land in question is granted to the
petitioner company for completion of the
project, and as such, the possession of small
portions of land in fragments out of the
allotted land granted to the petitioner, is of no
use and is actually inconsequential and a
mere eye-wash, until the entire vacant
physical possession of the land in question is
granted to the petitioner, the project cannot be
initiated.

26. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the land was allotted in three
different locations. When the representatives
of the petitioner company went to take
physical possession in Sector 101, it was
revealed that the respondent no.3 did not
have possession, and the land still remained
with the farmers. A mass-scale agitation was
taking place at the site, with the result
nothing could be done on the site.

27. The benefit of the Zero period was
only granted until January 31, 2017.
2 All. M/s Xanadu Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P.& Ors.
621
However, proper physical possession was
not handed over, nor was the promised
infrastructure and road by the Noida
Authority was provided even after that.
Therefore, the benefit of the Zero period
should be extended in accordance with the
Zero
period
policy
of
the
State
Government.

28. The petitioner company, which
was the lead member of the consortium,
applied for, in terms of the policy for
increase in FSI from 1.5 to 2.0. A payment
of Rs.25 crores was made towards the
additional FSI, but it was never granted by
the Noida Authority.

29. The development of the project
was halted due to several issues, including
the non-approval of the master plan, the
unavailability of appropriate infrastructure,
the absence of a connecting road to the
project, and a lack of decision by the Noida
Authority following the CAG report.

30. Since there was a delay on the part
of the Noida Authority in handing over
possession. Hence, the delay cannot be
attributed
to
the
petitioner
and
the
petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the
Zero period policy.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
THE RESPONDENTS

31. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Senior
Counsel for the Noida Authority submitted
that before proceeding in the matter it is
worthwhile to mention about the petitioner
herein. He submitted that no doubt, the
petitioner was a lead member of the
consortium which had applied for the
project, but as soon as the project was
allotted as per the scheme, the lead member
was required to hold a 30 per cent stake in
the project. However, on the request of the
petitioner, the lease was executed by the
Noida Authority with the other relevant
members of the consortium, and the name
of the petitioner was found to be missing.
The leases executed by the officials of the
Noida Authority at that point of time were
contrary to the conditions outlined in the
brochure of Sports City, and the petitioner
could not have walked out of the project.
However, the consortium members, as well
as the Noida Authority, allowed the
petitioner to walk away, and the entire
project was allotted to the other relevant
members.

32. He further submitted that an
application was made by the Consortium in
which Lead Member was M/s Xanadu
Estates
Pvt.
Ltd.
along
with
other
Consortium Members. A chart showing the
composition of the Consortium and their
date of registration, list of Directors and
shareholdings, are as follows:-
Sl.No. Name of
the
Compan
y
Lead
Memb
er/Rele
vant
Memb
er
Percen
tage
Date of
Incorp
oration
Dire
ctors
Holdi
ng of
the
Comp
any
1.
M/s
Xanadu
Estates
Pvt. Ltd.
Lead
Membe
r
30%
10.03.2
011
Nirm
al
Sing
h
Vidu
r
Bhar
adwa
j
Surpr
eet
Sing
h
Suri

2.
M/s
Meriton
Infotech
Pvt. Ltd.
Releva
nt
Membe
r
05%
19.10.2
005
Surpr
eet
Sing
h
622 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Suri
Vidu
r
Bhar
adwa
j
Nirm
al
Sing
h
Maya
nk
Chau
rasia
Anan
d
Kum
ar
Chau
rasia
Hari
Veer
apan
eni
Krish
na
3.
M/s
Sutlej
Agro
Products
Limited
Releva
nt
Membe
r
10%
Nirm
al
Sing
h
Vidu
r
Bhar
adwa
j
Supr
eet
Sing
h
Suri
4.
M/s
Xanadu
Infradeve
lopers
Pvt. Ltd.
Releva
nt
Membe
r
10%
10.03.2
011
Nirm
al
Sing
h
Vidu
r
Bhar
adwa
j
Surpr
eet
Sing
h
Suri
5.
M/s
Xanadu
Infratech
Pvt. Ltd.
Releva
nt
Membe
r
10%
10.03.2
011
Nirm
al
Sing
h
Vidu
r
Bhar
adwa
j
Surpr
eet
Sing
h
Suri
6.
M/s
Xanadu
Realcon
Pvt. Ltd.
Releva
nt
Membe
r
10%
10.03.2
011
Nirm
al
Sing
h
Vidu
r
Bhar
adwa
j
Surpr
eet
Sing
h
Suri
7.
M/s
Sequel
Buildcon
Pvt. Ltd.
Releva
nt
Membe
r
10%
10.03.2
011
Nirm
al
Sing
h
Vidu
r
Bhar
adwa
j
Supr
eet
2 All. M/s Xanadu Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P.& Ors.
623
Sing
h
Suri
8.
M/s
Sequel
Building
Concepts.
Releva
nt
Membe
r
10%
10.03.2
011
Nirm
al
Sing
h
Vidu
r
Bhar
adwa
j
Surpr
eet
Sing
h
Suri
9.
M/s
Kindle
Develope
rs
Pvt.
Ltd.
Releva
nt
Membe
r
10%
10.03.2
011
Nirm
al
Sing
h
Vidu
r
Bhar
adwa
j
Surpr
eet
Sing
h
Suri

33.
Learned
Senior
Advocate
submitted that out of nine companies of the
consortium,
seven
of
them
were
incorporated on 10.03.2011, even the Lead
Member was incorporated on 10.03.2011,
after the scheme was launched with the
same set of Directors. This shows that all
the companies were incorporated by same
set of Directors, which were the actual
promoters.

34. Bid of this consortium company was
the most compliant and the Consortium was
allotted the Sports City Project in Sector-78
and 79, which was for area ad-measuring
7,27,500 sqm. Accordingly, allotment letter
was issued on 04.05.2011 in favour of M/S
Xanadu Estates Pvt. Ltd. (Consortium).

35.
Mr.
Goyal,
Senior
Counsel
submitted that the scheme for development of
Sports City in Sector-78 & 79 was launched
on 03.03.2011 and the same was closed on
24.03.2011. The main feature of the Sports
City Scheme was sports facilities, which is an
integrated project and has to be developed as
a whole. Even if a Consortium Company
applied for the project, it was the Consortium
as a whole which is assumed to be the lessee
and not any individual company.

36. He further submitted that the way
the allotment was carried out, sub divisions
were made, due instalments were never asked
for and not even paid; the way map was
sanctioned, the allottees were allowed to start
construction
of
the
commercial
and
residential areas even without starting
development of sports facilities were not in
accordance with the scheme or the terms of
the brochure of the lease conditions.

37. He next submitted that M/s Xanadu
Estates Pvt. Ltd. (Lead Member of the
Consortium) vide letter dated 11.10.2011
requested NOIDA to execute separate Lease
Deeds in favour of the Relevant Members of
the Consortium. It was in pursuance of the
aforesaid request that NOIDA executed
Lease Deeds in favour of the Relevant
Members of the Consortium on 24.10.2011

38. The entire division was made
based on a letter provided by the petitioner.
Surprisingly, the petitioner itself opted out
of the consortium and did not retain any
parcel of the land as the lead member.

39. At the petitioner's request, the land
was sub-divided into six parts, after which
the Noida Authority executed lease deeds
with all six companies. The lease deed
624 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
clearly indicated that Sports City is an
integrated
project,
which
must
be
developed as a whole.

40. The petitioner, as the lead member
of the consortium, wrote a letter to the
Noida Authority stating that M/s Three C
Green Developers Pvt. Ltd. would serve as
a Special Purpose Company responsible for
developing the sports facility in Sports
City, along with M/S Xanadu Infratech Pvt.
Ltd.

41. All the allottees collectively
submitted a master layout plan for the
development of the entire Sports City. As
an internal arrangement, they divided the
obligations among themselves, wherein two
companies were tasked with developing the
entire Sports City according to the
brochure. Meanwhile, the other smaller
companies took on the responsibility of
developing the residential and commercial
portions of the Sports City.

42. He further submitted that this
division was an internal arrangement
between
the
consortium
members.
Regarding the Noida Authority, Sports City
was an integrated project that needed to be
developed by the consortium as per the
scheme.
The
Noida
Authority
never
bifurcated the project or assigned the
responsibilities
of
developing
the
residential and commercial portions to
individual companies.

43. A simple perusal of the brochure
and the lease deed executed between the
consortium members clearly shows that the
project
was
an
integrated
one.
In
developing Sports City, it was evident that
the primary objective was the development
of Sports City, while the commercial and
residential components were ancillary parts
of the project.

44. He further submitted that there
were encroachments and challenges in
handing over the entire portion of the
project. In the 177th meeting of the Board,
it was decided to provide an alternative plot
in Sector 101, ensuring that 80% of the
project land, as envisaged in the brochure,
is handed over to the consortium for the
development of Sports City. Based on the
representation
made
by
consortium
members, the Noida Authority, on its own
accord, granted benefits of a Zero period up
to
31.01.2017
and
subsequently,
rescheduled the payment schedule to
prevent any adverse impact on the authority
due to late possession of the project.
However, while providing the Zero period
benefit, it was explicitly stated that no
further benefits of the Zero period would be
awarded
to
the
consortium
members/allottees.

45. After four years of enjoying the
benefits of the Zero period, the petitioner
company once
again
is
seeking
an
extension of the Zero period. However, no
further
benefit
can
be
granted,
as
possession of the land has been handed
over to them. The delay in the execution of
the project is solely attributable to the
consortium
members/allottees.
Furthermore, some allottees have obtained
individual
map
sanctions
for
the
development of residential and commercial
areas and have begun booking and
collecting money from home buyers. If
these companies did not have possession of
the land, how could they have obtained
map sanctions and started collecting funds
from home buyers? Collecting money from
home buyers without possession would
constitute an act of fraud with the home
buyers.

46. The petitioner company is seeking
an increase in FAR from 1.5 to 2.0, which
2 All. M/s Xanadu Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P.& Ors.
625
is not feasible. The Sports City was
conceptualized with an FAR of 1.5 in mind,
and the allotment was made accordingly. It
is not permissible for the petitioner to
request an FAR of 2.0, as it was not part of
the scheme or policy of the Sports City.

47. All consortium members have
failed to pay premium instalments on time.
The lease deed explicitly states that if
instalments are not paid on time, they will
be subject to an 11% interest, plus a 3%
penal interest on the delayed payment of
instalments. Hence, they are liable to pay
the due premiums along with contractual
interest
and
other
dues,
which
are
outstanding.

48. He further submitted that in this
petition, the petitioner is seeking damages
of Rs.200 crores. However, the delay is due
to the inaction of the consortium members,
and there is no question of paying any
compensation. Further no compensation
can be claimed in a writ petition.

49. The learned Senior Advocate
vehemently submitted that the petitioner
company has no locus to file the instant
writ petition. While it was the lead member
of the consortium during the initial
application, it later opted out of the project
on its own accord. Subsequently, the
project was divided among six companies,
and as of now, the petitioner company
holds no interest in the project.

50. He lastly submitted that the present
writ petition filed by the petitioner is
nothing but a gross abuse of process of law
and the same is a frivolous petition as the
petitioner has no locus to file the instant
writ petition.

ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

51. We have carefully considered the
submissions advanced by the learned
counsels for the respective parties. With
their able assistance, we have proceeded to
peruse the pleadings, grounds taken in the
writ petition, annexures appended thereof,
the reply filed by the opposite party and
also the rejoinder affidavit filed by the
appellants.

52. NOIDA having been declared to
be an Industrial Township is obligated to,
not only develop industries but also to
develop a complete township by virtue of
Article 243Q of the Constitution of India.
The sports city scheme having been widely
publicized on 03.03.2011 was to fulfil
laudable object. This is evident that the
object of the scheme was to develop, state
of the art sports facilities to be enjoyed by
the public. This scheme was launched for
developing Sports City at two different
places in Noida, first in Sectors 78 & 79,
admeasuring about 7,27,500 square metres
and the other sports city in Sector 150 in
Noida.

53. It was a mandatory condition that
only the lead member would be authorized
to correspond with the NOIDA Authority.
Additionally,
the
lead
member
was
required to be the single largest shareholder
in the consortium, holding a minimum of
30% stake.

54.