# Satya Home Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 10 ILRA 936
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-10-04
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 11108 of 2019
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satya-home-pvt-ltd-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51165
- **Pages:** 22

## Headnote

A. Land Law - Sanctioning of map to raise
construction
-
U.P.
Industrial
Area
Development Act, 1976 -Section 19 - The
bone of contention between the parties is
as to whether the request sought to be
made
by
the
writ
petitioners
for
sanctioning of the map can be turned
down
on
the
considerations
which
weighed
the
NOIDA
in
the
orders
impugned. A survey of the statutory provisions
shows that the basic object of engrafting the
1976, Act was to provide for constitution of the
authority for the development of certain areas
into industrial and urban townships and the
matter connected therewith. (Para 28)

Maintainability - As regards, the objection
raised by the NOIDA regarding maintainability of
the writ petition on the ground of existence of
an
alternative
efficacious
remedy
while
preferring an appeal under Regulation 14 of
2010, Regulations, there is no quarrel to the
said proposition, however, earlier an order
impugned came to be passed which was subject
matter of challenge in the earlier spell of
litigation and the NOIDA itself withdrew the
same and thereafter now the order impugned
has been passed and questioning the same the
writ petition is pending 2018-19 and responses
have been filed by the NOIDA disclosing their
stand, thus, it would be futile to dismiss the writ
petition on the ground of alternative remedy.
(Para 29)

B. The first and foremost question which
arises for consideration before us is
whether it is open for the NOIDA to pass a
blanket
order
forbidding
the
writ
10 All. Satya Home Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
937
petitioners to raise constructions while
not sanctioning map as requested by
them. Once it is not disputed that the Khasra
Nos. 793 and 795 situated in Village-Gulavali
stands notified and are part of sector 161 of
NOIDA then obviously the power to regulate
stands conferred with the NOIDA. The NOIDA
can
resort
to
appropriate
regulatory
measures which may be necessary from
time to time in order to give effect to its
statutory scheme and object. (Para 30)

C. For the query: Whether there is any
restriction or a bar backed by a statutory
provision relating to transfer of the land
by anyone to the other, counsels for Noida
could not point out any provision to the
said fact. (Para 31)

As per the factual position, there is no
option but to assume that the parties are
free to transfer the land which belongs to
them and they are the owners.

D. Whether in the said factual backdrop,
there can be any resistance on the part of
NOIDA in not processing the applications
for building permit. (Para 32)

Mere obtaining of a declaration u/s 143 of
1950 Act would not be bind the NOIDA
Authorities. (Para 35, 44)

Once the Khasra Nos. 793 and 795 situated in
Village-Gulavali stands notified by the NOIDA
and is a part of Sector-161 then obviously
NOIDA is possessed with the power to regulate
the constructions. The power

## Text

_Characters 0–39,984 of 73,482. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39984 for what follows._

936 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/
appearance of applicant-Ankur Agarwal
before the learned Trial Court in the
aforesaid case crime, he shall be released
on anticipatory bail on his furnishing
personal bond and two solvent sureties,
each in the like amount, to the satisfaction
of
S.H.O./Court
concerned
on
the
following conditions and subject to any
other conditions that may be fixed by the
Trial Court:

(i). that the applicant shall make
himself available for interrogation by a
police officer as and when required;

(ii). that the applicant shall not
directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the Court
or to any police officer or tamper with the
evidence;

(iii). that the applicant shall not
leave India without the previous permission
of the court'

(iv). that the applicant shall
appear before the trial court on each date
fixed,
unless
personal
presence
is
exempted; and

(v). that the applicant shall not
pressurize/
intimidate
the
prosecution
witness.
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 936
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Writ C No. 11108 of 2019
With
Writ C No. 41917 of 2018
Satya Home Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Nisheeth Yadav, Sri Pankaj Kumar
Shukla, Sri Prateek Sinha, Sri C.B. Yadav
(Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, Sri
Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi (Sr. Advocate)

A. Land Law - Sanctioning of map to raise
construction
-
U.P.
Industrial
Area
Development Act, 1976 -Section 19 - The
bone of contention between the parties is
as to whether the request sought to be
made
by
the
writ
petitioners
for
sanctioning of the map can be turned
down
on
the
considerations
which
weighed
the
NOIDA
in
the
orders
impugned. A survey of the statutory provisions
shows that the basic object of engrafting the
1976, Act was to provide for constitution of the
authority for the development of certain areas
into industrial and urban townships and the
matter connected therewith. (Para 28)

Maintainability - As regards, the objection
raised by the NOIDA regarding maintainability of
the writ petition on the ground of existence of
an
alternative
efficacious
remedy
while
preferring an appeal under Regulation 14 of
2010, Regulations, there is no quarrel to the
said proposition, however, earlier an order
impugned came to be passed which was subject
matter of challenge in the earlier spell of
litigation and the NOIDA itself withdrew the
same and thereafter now the order impugned
has been passed and questioning the same the
writ petition is pending 2018-19 and responses
have been filed by the NOIDA disclosing their
stand, thus, it would be futile to dismiss the writ
petition on the ground of alternative remedy.
(Para 29)

B. The first and foremost question which
arises for consideration before us is
whether it is open for the NOIDA to pass a
blanket
order
forbidding
the
writ
10 All. Satya Home Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
937
petitioners to raise constructions while
not sanctioning map as requested by
them. Once it is not disputed that the Khasra
Nos. 793 and 795 situated in Village-Gulavali
stands notified and are part of sector 161 of
NOIDA then obviously the power to regulate
stands conferred with the NOIDA. The NOIDA
can
resort
to
appropriate
regulatory
measures which may be necessary from
time to time in order to give effect to its
statutory scheme and object. (Para 30)

C. For the query: Whether there is any
restriction or a bar backed by a statutory
provision relating to transfer of the land
by anyone to the other, counsels for Noida
could not point out any provision to the
said fact. (Para 31)

As per the factual position, there is no
option but to assume that the parties are
free to transfer the land which belongs to
them and they are the owners.

D. Whether in the said factual backdrop,
there can be any resistance on the part of
NOIDA in not processing the applications
for building permit. (Para 32)

Mere obtaining of a declaration u/s 143 of
1950 Act would not be bind the NOIDA
Authorities. (Para 35, 44)

Once the Khasra Nos. 793 and 795 situated in
Village-Gulavali stands notified by the NOIDA
and is a part of Sector-161 then obviously
NOIDA is possessed with the power to regulate
the constructions. The power vested with the
NOIDA to regulate cannot be transformed into
the power to restrict or restrain constructions
while not sanctioning map. The maps obviously
are to be sanctioned until and unless the same
is not as per the Acts and Regulations. (Para 36)

E. Whether in the wake of the statutory
provisions, the impugned orders could
have been passed.

There is no restriction on the transfer of the
land which is owned by the tenure holder. Once
the position being so which is owned a right
stands accrued to the land owners to ask for
sanctioning of map. The said right is not an
unfettered right but it is subject to various
factors inclusive of compliance of the
Rules and the Regulations on the said
subject. Once the NOIDA possesses the power
to sanction the map then the said power cannot
be exercised illegally and denial is to be based
upon adequate reasons backed by the statute in
consonance
with
the
Article
14
of
the
Constitution of India.

(i) One of the reasons for not according
building permit was that such type of
permit so sought by the land owners for
raising constructions cannot be granted as
there is no policy available with the
NOIDA in sanctioning the map, when the
land in question is neither allotted nor
acquired. Certainly, said ground taken by
the NOIDA in denying the building permit
is inconceivable and not as per the
statutes.

(ii)
The
other
ground
that
since
acquisition proceedings are underway as
resolution has been passed for acquisition
or purchase of the land owned by the writ
petitioners, thus, the building permit
cannot be accorded also does not test the
legal
touchstone
as
acquisition
or
resumption is a matter which is to happen
in future and which will take a long time
and even if it happens in future, the
present cannot be sacrificed, particularly,
when the question of ownership is not disputed
and the writ petitioners hold a valid title till the
passing of the orders impugned in the present
writ petitions. (Para 37)

F. When a statutory functionary makes an
order based on certain grounds, its
validity must be judged by the reasons so
mentioned and cannot be supplemented
by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit
or otherwise. (Para 40, 41)

So far as the allegations of raising illegal
constructions
by
the
writ
petitioners
is
concerned though it is noticed in the order
impugned and as well as allegations to the said
fact are in the counter affidavit filed by the
NOIDA but the extent of the said illegal
constructions is not indicated or disclosed.
There is no report of the NOIDA appended to
938 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the counter affidavit so as to suggest as to what
type of illegal constructions has been raised by
the writ petitioners. (Para 38)

The counter affidavit filed by the NOIDA alleges
that the lands which are owned by the writ
petitioners have been further transferred by the
writ petitioners in fragmentation to others which
is also one of the ground for negating the
request of the writ petitioners for grant of
building permit but, the Court finds from the
orders impugned in the writ petition that the
said ground is not available. Regulations, 2010
also provides for filing of the application for
according permission for layout and sub-division
of plots as per checklist-1C, it might be a
relevant consideration for granting or denying
the building permit but the said facts have also
not been adverted in the orders impugned.
(Para 39)

Since the order impugned does not advert to
said aspect, thus, this Court is not in a position
to go into the said issue at this stage. (Para 42)

Since in the present case, the order impugned
in both the writ petitions have not adverted to
the core and fundamental issues which are
being sought to be argued by the respective
parties and noticed in the judgment, thus, the
orders cannot be sustained and they are liable
to be set aside while remitting the back to the
matter to concerned authorities to pass a fresh
order strictly in accordance with law after
revisiting the entire issues. (Para 45)

Writ petitions partly allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. M/s Bright Infracon Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Vs State
of U.P. & anr., Writ-C No. 43195 of 2015,
decided on 16.02.2018 (Para 34)

2. Paradise Development Vs Chief Town and
Country Planed alongwith connected Misc.
Bench No. 5617 of 19990, decided
on
05.09.2017, 2017 SCC OnLine All 2744 (Para
35)

3. Mohinder Singh Gill Vs The Chief Election
Commissioner, New Delhi & ors., (1978) 1 SCC
405 (Para 40)
4. U.O.I. & anr. Vs GTC Industries Ltd.,
Bombay, (2003) 5 SCC 106 (Para 41)

Precedent distinguished:

Ajeet Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 5
others, Writ-C No. 43275 of 2015 (Para 34)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.)

1. Since common question of facts and
law are involved in both the writ petitions,
thus, they are being decided by a composite
order.

2. The counsel for the rival parties have
made a joint statement that they do not
propose to file any further affidavits and the
writ petitions be decided on the basis of the
documents available on record, thus, with the
consent of the parties, writ petitions are being
decided at the admission stage.

Facts

Writ- C No. - 11108 of 2019 (Leading
writ petition )

3. The facts of the leading writ petition
are that there happens to be a certain piece of
land being khasra Nos. 793 and 795 situated
in Village Gulawali, Tehsil and District-
Gautam Budh Nagar which was transferred
in favour of the writ petitioners by virtue of
three registered sale deeds namely, (a)-
Khasra No.793 admeasuring 4219 square
meter on 20.06.2015, (b)- Khasra No.795
admeasuring
3372,
square
meter
on
14.12.2015
and
(c)-
Khasra
No.787
admeasuring
1980
square
meter
on
02.07.2015. As per the pleadings set out in
para 11, 16 and 17 of the writ petition, the
Khasra Nos. 793, 795 and 787 situate in the
village in question is notified as a part of
Sector 161 of New Okhla Industrial
Development Authority (in short 'NOIDA').
10 All. Satya Home Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
939

4. According to the writ petitioners,
after the execution of the registered sale
deeds as referred to above, the writ
petitioners preferred an application seeking
permission on 16.10.2017 before the Chief
Executive Officer of NOIDA, second
respondent
for
construction
of
club
building and guest house. The said
application was preferred on the premise
that the club building and the guest house
are the part of the institutional development
as per clause 24.5 of the New Okhla
Industrial Development Area Building
Regulation, 2010 (in short 'Regulation
2010'). On 17.10.2017, an order came to be
passed by the Chief Executive Officer,
NOIDA, second respondent whereby the
request for sanctioning of the map for
construction of club building and guest
house was turned down. The said order was
subject matter of challenge in Writ-C
No.14777 of 2018 (Satya Homes Pvt. Ltd.
and Another v. State of U.P. and three
others) in which on 03.05.2018, the
following order was passed:

"Heard Mr. Nisheeth Yadav,
learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.
Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel
for respondents 2 and 4.

The principal prayer made in the
writ petition reads thus:

"(i) A writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the order
dated 17.10.2017 issued by the respondent
no. 2. (Annexure-11 to this writ petition)."

Counsel
appearing
for
the
respondent-Authority,
on
instructions,
submits that the second respondent shall
withdraw the order dated 17.10.2017
within a period of one week from today and
seeks liberty to this respondent to initiate
fresh proceedings and pass appropriate
orders. His statement is recorded and
accepted. In view thereof, nothing further
survives in the writ petition. Petition is
disposed of as infructuous with liberty as
prayed. All contentions of the parties on
merits are kept open."

5. Post passing of the order dated
03.05.2018 in Writ-C No.14777 of 2018
(Satya Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Another v.
State of U.P. and three others), the writ
petitioners
preferred
a
detailed
representation/ application before the Chief
Executive
Officer,
NOIDA,
second
respondent which has been rejected by the
order dated 15.11.2018.

6. The same led to filing of the leading
writ petition wherein the following reliefs
was sought:

"I. a writ, order or direction, in
the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 15.11.2018 passed
by the Authority (Annexure No.14 to this
Writ Petition).

II. a writ, order, or direction, in
the nature of mandamus, directing the
respondent
no.2
to
reconsider
the
application for sanctioning of the map to
raise construction as in the nature of
institutional purposes.

III. any other suitable order or
direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the present case.

IV. an award to the cost of the
petition to the petitioners."

7. The leading writ petition came to be
entertained by this Court on 01.04.2019
while
seeking
response
from
the
respondents.

8. A counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of the second respondent sworn
940 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by Manager (Planning) NOIDA dated
03.11.2019 followed by a supplementary
counter affidavit of the same authority
dated 29.11.2019 of Tehsildar (NOIDA).

9. Rejoinder affidavit as well as
supplementary rejoinder affidavit have
been filed by the writ petitioners which are
available on record.

Writ- C No. - 41917 of 2018
(Connected writ petition)

10. As regards, the connected writ
petition is concerned, the same has been
filed by one Smt. Kiran Devi wife of
Arvind Kumar Singh and Smt. Mira
Kumari wife of Sri Ramesh Kumar wherein
it is claimed that one Mehar Chandra son of
Sri Fatti was the original tenure holder of
khasra No.795 of Khata No. 370 of the
Village - Gulawali, Pargana Dankaur,
Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam Budh Nagar
area of 2.2320 hectare. It is pleaded that
since the family of Mehar Chandra was
using the land of Khasra No.795 for
residential purposes and not for agriculture
and further the land was a part of the
village
Abadi
of
Village
Gulawali,
therefore,
Mehar
Chandra
made
an
application under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A.
& L.R. Act, 1950 (in short 'Act, 1950') for
declaration of the land as non-agricultural.
The said application was registered as Case
No. 38 of 2013-14 (Mehar Chandra v. State
of U.P. & Others) and the Court of Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Gautam Budh
Nagar after obtaining the report from
concerned authority, passed an order on
29.04.2014 declaring the land to be nonagriculture. It is also pleaded that so far as
Khata No. 281 of Khasra No. 793, a part of
the same is also declared to be nonagriculture by virtue of the declaration
under Section 143 of the Act, 1950.

11. Pleadings further reveal that
though Mehar Chandra and his family
members who are the owners of the
respective Khasras and who were residing
over the demise land in question, they were
confronted with the demolition notices
seeking to demolish their constructions at
the end of the NOIDA on 28.08.2014.

12. Questioning the same, Writ-C
No.65021 of 2014 (Fundan and 4 others v.
State of U.P.) was preferred which came to
be disposed of on 22.01.2015 while passing
the following orders:

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned counsel for the
respondents.

The writ petition has been filed
seeking following relief:-

"(i) To issue writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents not to take
any action and not to disturb the peaceful
possession of the petitioners part of the
land comprising of Khata No. 281 Khasara
No. 793 area 1.2280 hectare and Khata
No. 370 Khasara No. 795 area 2.2320
hectare of revenue Village Gulavali,
Pargana Dankaur, Tehsil Sadar, District
Gautam Budh Nagar."

Time was granted to Sri Shivam
Yadav, learned counsel appearing for
respondent no. 3 to obtain instructions.
Today when the matter has been taken up,
Sri Shivam Yadav states that no notification
has been issued. He further states that the
possession of the land shall not be
disturbed and shall be taken over only in
accordance with law. He further states that
the authorities do not have any intention to
disturb the possession of the petitioners
over the aforesaid two Khasara plot nos.
and possession shall only be taken over in
accordance with law.
10 All. Satya Home Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
941

In view of the aforesaid factual
situation we direct that possession of the
petitioners over Khasara No. 793 and 795
of Khata No. 281 and 370 respectively
shall not be disturbed and shall not be
taken over except in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid directions and
observations, the writ petition stands
disposed of."

13. In para 12 of the connected writ
petition, it is further asserted that since
Mehar Chandra, the father of the co-tenure
holders was quite old and, therefore, for
disposing of the land in question, a General
Power of Attorney was entered with Dinesh
Pawar, son of Amar Singh. The writ
petitioner No.1 in order to reside in Gautam
Budh Nagar purchased a residential house
situated on plot no. 27, having total area
plot admeasuring 380 sq yards i.e. 317.72
sq meters comprising of Khasra No.795 in
which two rooms, bathroom, toilet, veranda
were already constructed, by way of a
registered sale deed on 21.03.2015. Insofar
as the petitioner No.2 is concerned, her
husband post retirement from the Merchant
Navy decided to settle down in NOIDA,
Gautam Budh Nagar and by virtue of a
registered sale deed dated 21.03.2015, he
purchased a land bearing an area of 310
square yards i.e. 259.20 square meters,
comprising of Khasra No.795 situated in
Village Gulawali, Pargana-Dankaur, Tehsil
and District Gautam Budh Nagar.

14. The writ petitioners further claim
that their name also stood recorded in the
revenue records. In para 19 and 20, it has
been asserted that like the writ petitioners
herein, about 64 families also purchased
small pieces of land bearing areas between
176 square meters to 299 square meters
situated in Khasra Nos.793 and 795 of village
Gulawali. However, when renovation was
being done then obstacles were created and
no heed was paid to the request made by
them for sanctioning the maps. Thus, Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No.16026 of 2016 (Mrs.
Minaksi and others v. State of U.P.) came to
be filed. However, according to the writ
petitioners, on 10.08.2017, an order came to
be passed by the Chief Executive Officer,
NOIDA whereby the request of the writ
petitioners for sanctioning of the map has
been turned down on the pretext that the
Khasra Nos. 793 and 795 are the part of
Sector-161 and notified by the NOIDA
Authorities and as per the records, they are
not the part of the village Abadi, thus, the
maps cannot be sanctioned.

15.
Assailing
the
action
of
the
respondents as well as the order dated
10.08.2017, the connected writ petition came
to be filed with the following reliefs:

"I. a writ, order or direction, in the
nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
order dated 10.08.2017 passed by the
respondents' Authority (Annexure No.18 to
this Writ Petition).

II. a writ, order or direction, in the
nature
of
mandamus,
directing
the
respondents'
Authority
to
allow
the
petitioner's to raise construction over there
purchased
plots,
situated
in
VillageGulawali, Pargana- Dankaur, Tehsil and
District-Gautam Budh Nagar in terms of the
parameters laid down in Regulation, 2016.

III. any other suitable order or
direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the present case.

IV. an award to the cost of the
petition to the petitioners."

16. In the connected writ petition,
affidavits have been exchanged between
the parties.
942 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Argument of the counsel for the writ
petitioners

17. Shri C.B. Yadav, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Nisheeth Yadav,
learned counsel for the writ petitioners in
the leading writ petition and Shri Rahul
Sripat, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shri
Ishir Sripat, learned counsel for the writ
petitioners in connected writ petition have
sought to argue that the orders passed by
the NOIDA negating the claim for
sanctioning of the map is per se illegal
besides being in violation of Article 300-A
of the Constitution of India and, thus, it is
liable to be set aside. Elaborating the said
submission, it is being argued that the writ
petitioners in the leading writ petition and
the connected writ petition have purchased
the land through a registered sale deed that
too
from
actual
owners
who
were
possessed with the right and the title and in
absence of any restriction in transfer of the
properties, NOIDA cannot raise any
objections regarding construction as though
it is the part of Sector 161 of the NOIDA
but the only power which is available with
the NOIDA is regulatory and there cannot
be any bar in not sanctioning map so as to
throttle down any attempt of raising
constructions which is in accordance with
law.

18. Argument is that there is a marked
difference between the regulatory power
and the power to forbid a particular act and
once the writ petitioners became owner by
virtue of a registered sale deed then
obviously as per there needs, they can raise
construction as nobody can be forced to
just purchase a land and to keep it vacant
without raising any constructions.

19. In nutshell, submission is that
though as per the 2010 Regulations framed
under Section 19 of the UP Industrial Area
Development Act, 1976 (in short 'Act
1976') power vests with the NOIDA with
the approval of the State Government to
make
regulations
and
according
to
Regulation 4 & 5, Chapter II, an
application for building permit is to be
made by a prospective applicant and the
same is to be decided as per the regulations
but, in case, the writ petitioners are not
permitted to raise constructions then the
very basic object of framing of the
regulations
would
stand
redundant.
According to the learned counsels for the
writ petitioners, the basic premise on the
basis whereof, the claim of the writ
petitioners for sanctioning of the map has
been negated is faulty and erroneous,
particularly, when the writ petitioners are
the recorded owners of the land in question
and they are using the land for construction
of club building and guest house and once
according to the NOIDA, the same has
been specified in the Master Plan for
institutional use then the proposal for
constructions of club building and guest
house also comes within the definition of
institutional use, thus, there was no
occasion to turn down the request of the
writ petitioners. Further submission is that
merely
because,
there
has
been
a
deliberation at the end of the NOIDA for
acquiring the land which is owned by the
writ petitioners, the same cannot be a
ground to resist constructions in view of the
fact that acquisition has not taken place till
date as no notification under the relevant
statutes has been issued. Additionally, it
has been submitted that acquisition or
resumption of the land as proposed by the
NOIDA
is
dependent
upon
certain
contingencies and the said decision has not
yet crystallized, thus, even if the maps are
sanctioned and constructions are raised
then in future, acquisition proceedings are
10 All. Satya Home Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
943
drawn then the NOIDA can obviously
acquire the land or resume the same while
paying compensation. It is, thus, prayed
that the orders impugned in both the writ
petitions be set aside, permission be
accorded to the writ petitioners to raise
constructions as per the regulations and the
writ petitions be allowed in toto.

Argument of the counsel for the
NOIDA

20. Countering the submissions of the
learned counsel for the writ petitioners in
both
the
writ
petitions,
Shri
M.C.
Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate assisted by
Sir Kaushalendra Nath Singh, who appears
for the respondent-NOIDA Authorities
have submitted that the orders impugned in
the writ petitions are perfectly valid in
accordance with law and needs no
interference in the present proceedings. A
question regarding maintainability of the
writ petition has been raised on the premise
that the writ petitioners have an alternative
efficacious remedy of preferring appeal
under
Regulation
14
of
the
2010,
Regulations, thus, the writ petition be
dismissed on the ground of alternative
remedy. On merits, It is submitted that in
order to raise constructions over the land
which is situated in an area which is
notified by the NOIDA being within its
jurisdiction,
permission
is
required.
According to them, there happens to be
specific procedure contemplated under the
Chapter-II of the Regulation, 2010 wherein
an application for building permit is
required and as per Regulations 4 & 5
under Chapter-II read with the checklist 1A (for building on individual plots),
checklist-1B (for the buildings other than
those on individual residential plots) and
checklist-1C (for the layout and subdivision
of plots), certain formalities are to be
completed at the end of the applicants who
seek to raise constructions. Submission is
that in the present case, the writ petitioners
in leading and the connected writ petition
have violated the regulations as they have
raised constructions without there being
any application for building permit less to
say about approval.

21. In nutshell, the submission is that
the constructions so raised are totally
unauthorized and illegal and in the garb of
an application seeking building permit,
they seek to regularize the same which is
thoroughly
impermissible
as
per
the
regulations. It has also been argued on
behalf of the NOIDA that the Khasra Nos.
793 and 795 comes within the notified area
as per the provisions of the Act, 1976 and
they are meant for institutional purpose,
thus, allowing the writ petitioners to raise
constructions
individually
would
tantamount to distort the very scheme,
particularly, when the same is to be allotted
for the institutional purpose.

22. While inviting attention towards
the counter affidavit filed on 03.11.2019
sworn by the Manager Planning, NOIDA
on behalf of the second respondent, it is
sought to be contended that with respect to
Khasra Nos. 793 and 795 which falls in the
notified area of NOIDA in Village-
Gulawali, the NOIDA has already sent a
proposal on 15.10.2012 to Additional
District Magistrate, Land Acquisition,
Gautam Budh Nagar for acquisition of the
above Khasras and the NOIDA has already
carved out a plan for Sector-161 in which
Khasra Nos.793 and 795 falls. It is also
contended that the NOIDA in furtherance
of its object for sustained development has
by virtue of the sale deed and acquisition
acquired a total area of 8.94 acres and for
the rest proceedings are already in line. It is
944 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
also contended that against the order
declaring the land of the writ petitioners to
be non-agriculture under Section 143 of
1950, Act restoration/ recall application has
been filed which is pending consideration.

23. While further inviting attention
towards the averments made in the
supplementary counter affidavit, it is
contended that in the 198th Board's
meeting of the NOIDA, an approval has
been accorded for purchasing of the land
for the purposes of development of the
Sector-161. With vehemence, it has been
contended that the writ petitioners in
leading
writ
petition
have
further
transferred the plots to different people
carving out of small plot and reference is
made to Annexure SCA-2 so as to contend
that now lands stand transferred to many
individuals in small proportions clearly
creating a situation whereby the very object
of institutional sustained development is
being sought to be throttled.

24. Additionally, it has been argued
that though for the urban areas, their exist
an Act by the name of Uttar Pradesh Urban
Planning and Development Act, 1973 for
regulation
of
the
constructions
and
ancillary issues but in the case of the
Industrial and Urban Township post
acquisition and purchase of land under the
1976, Act, a great amount of development
is required inclusive of laying down of
roads, water-supply and sewerage etc.
Thus, in case, permission is accorded to the
writ petitioners to raise constructions
according to their whims and fancies that
too in fragmentation then the basic object
of institutional development would stand
redundant. It is, accordingly, prayed that
the writ petition be dismissed with cost.

Argument of the learned Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents

25. Shri Devesh Vikram, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel along
with Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned
Standing
Counsel
have
adopted
the
submissions of Shri M.C. Chaturvedi,
Senior Advocate who had appeared for
NOIDA and have submitted that they have
nothing more to add except the fact that the
order impugned in the present proceedings
are perfectly valid in accordance with law
and no fault whatsoever can be attributed in
this regard.

26. Before dwelling into the tenability
of the arguments raised by the respective
parties, it would be opposite to quote, the
relevant provisions of the Act and the
Regulations which are germane to the
controversy in question.

Statutory Provisions

"U.P.
Industrial
Area
Development Act, 1976

Section
2
(d)
"industrial
development area" means an area declared
as such by the State Government by
notification.

Section 6. Functions of the
Authority.- (1) The object of the Authority
shall be to secure the planned development
of the industrial development areas.

(2) Without prejudice to the
generality of the objects of the Authority,
the Authority shall perform the following
functions-

(a) to acquire land in the
industrial development area, by agreement
or through proceedings under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purposes of
this Act;
10 All. Satya Home Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
945

(b) to prepare a plan for the
development of the industrial development
area;

(c) to demarcate and develop
sites
for
industrial,
commercial
and
residential purposes according to the plan;

(d) to provide infra-structure for
industrial, commercial and residential
purposes;

(e)to provide amenities;

(f) to allocate arid transfer either
by way of sale or lease or otherwise plots
of land for industrial, commercial or
residential purposes;

(g) to regulate the erection of
buildings and setting up of industries; and

(h) to lay down the purpose for
which a particular site or plot of land shall
be
used,
namely,
for
industrial
or
commercial or residential purpose or any
other specified purpose in such area.

Section
8.
Power
of
issue
directions in respect of erection of
building.

(1) For the purposes of proper
planning and development of the industrial
development area, the Authority may issue
such
directions
as
it may
consider
necessary, regarding-

(a) architectural features of the
elevation or frontage of any building,

(b) the alignment of buildings on,
any site.

(c) the restrictions and conditions
in regard to open spaces to be maintained
in and around buildings and height and
character of buildings,

(d) the number of residential
buildings that may be erected on any site,

(e)regulation of erection of shops,
workshops,
warehouses,
factories
or
buildings,

(f) maintenance of height and
position of walls, fences, hedges or any
other
structure
or
architecture
constructions,

(g) maintenance of amenities,

(h) restriction of use of any site
for a purpose other than for which it has
been allocated;

(i) the means to be provided for
proper-

(i) drainage of waste water,

(ii) disposal of industrial waste,
and

(iii)disposal of town refuse.

(2) Every transferee shall comply
with the directions issued under sub-section
(1) and shall as expeditiously as possible
erect any building or take such other steps
as may be necessary to comply with such
directions.

Section-9. Ban on erection of
buildings in contravention of regulations.-
(1) No person shall erect or occupy any
building in the industrial development area
in contravention of any building regulation
made under sub-section (2).

(2)
The
Authority
may
by
notification and with the prior approval of
the State Government, make regulations to
regulate the erection of buildings and such
regulations may provide for all or any of
the following matters, namely,-

(a) the materials to be used for
external and partition walls, roofs, floors
and other parts of a building and their
position or location or the method of
construction;

(b) lay out plan of the building
whether
industrial,
commercial
or
residential;

(c) the height and slope of the
roofs and floors of any building which is
intended to be used for residential or
cooking purposes;

(d) the ventilation in, or the space
to be left about any building or part thereof
946 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to secure circulation of air or for the
prevention of fire;

(e) the number and height of the
storeys of any building;

(f) the means to be provided for
the ingress and egress to and from any
buildings;

(g) the minimum dimensions of
rooms intended for use as living rooms or
sleeping rooms and the provision of
ventilation;

(h)
any
other
matter
in
furtherance of the proper regulation of
erection, completion and occupation of
buildings; and

(i) the certificates necessary and
incidental to the submission of plans,
amended plans and completion reports.

[ No Panchayat for Industrial
Township. [Inserted by U. P. Act No. 4 of
2001, Section 2 (w.e.f. 24-3-2001).]

Section 12-A- No Panchayat for
industrial
township.-Notwithstanding
anything contained to the contrary in any
Uttar Pradesh Act, where an industrial
development area or any part thereof is
specified to be an industrial township
under the proviso to clause (1) of Article
243-Q of the Constitution, such industrial
development area or part thereof, if
included in a Panchayat area, shall, with
effect from the date of notification made
under the said proviso, stand excluded from
such Panchayat area and no Panchayat
shall be constituted for such industrial
development area or part thereof under the
United Provinces Panchayat Raj Act, 1947
or the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats
and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961, as
the case may be, and any Panchayat
constituted for such industrial development
area or part thereof before the date of such
notification, shall cease to exist.

Section 16. Powers of entry, etc.-
The Chief Executive Officer may authorise
any person, to enter into or open any land
or building with or without assistance, for
the purposes of-

(a)
making
any
inquiry,
inspection, measurement or survey or
taking levels of such land or building;

(b)
examining
works
under
construction or of ascertaining the course
of sewers or drains;

(c) ascertaining whether any
building is being or has been erected or reerected
without
sanction
or
in
contravention of any sanction given under
this Act or the rules and regulations made
thereunder and to take such measurements
and do any such other acts as may be
necessary for such purpose;

(d)
doing
any
other
thing
necessary for the efficient administration of
this Act:

Provided that-

(i) no such entry shall be made
except between the hours of sunrise and
sunset and without giving reasonable
notice to the occupier, or if there be no
occupier, the owner of the land or building;

(ii) sufficient opportunity shall, in
every instance, be given to enable women,
if any, to withdraw from such land or
building;

(iii) due regard shall always be
had, so far as may be compatible with the
exigencies of the purpose of which the entry
is made, to the social and religious usages
of the occupants of the land or building
enacted.

Section 17. Overriding effect of
the Act.- Upon any area being declared an
industrial development area under the
provisions of this Act, such area, if
included in the master plan or the zonal
development plan under the Uttar Pradesh
Urban Planning and Development Act,
1973, or any other development plan under
any other Uttar Pradesh Act, with effect
10 All. Satya Home Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
947
from the date of such declaration, be
deemed to be excluded from any such plan.

Section 18. Power to make
rules.- The State Government may, by
notification, make rules for carrying out the
purposes of this Act.

Section 19. Power to make
regulations.- (1) The Authority may, with
the
previous
approval
of
the
State
Government,
make
regulation
not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act
or the rules made thereunder for the
administration of the affairs of the
Authority.

(2) In particular, and without
prejudice to the generality of the foregoing
power, such regulation may provide for all
or any of the following matters, namely,-

(a) the summoning and holding of
meetings of the Authority, the time and
place where such meetings are to be held,
the conduct of business at such meetings,
and the number of members necessary to
form a quorum thereat;

(b) the powers and duties of the
Chief Executive Officer;

(c) the form of register of
application for permission to erect a
building;

(d) the management of properties
of the Authority;

(e) fees to be levied in the
discharge of its functions;

(f) such other matters as are to be
provided for in regulation.

New Okhla Industrial Development
Authority Rural Abadi Site
(Management and Regularization for
Residential Purposes)
Regulations, 2006

["2. (1) (f) "Rural Abadi Site"
means the rural areas used for residential
purpose on June 30, 2011 and continues to
be so used on the date of commencement of
the New Okhla Industrial Development
Authority Rural Abadi Site (Management
and
Regularisation
for
Residential
Purpose) (Third Amendment) Regulations,
2011 or such rural areas as are used for
residential purpose as on the date of
commencement of these regulations and
continues to be used as such on June 30,
2011. These regulations shall also extend
to such Gram Sabha land which has been
resumed by Revenue Department in favour
of the Authority and kept on the disposal of
Industrial Development Department and on
which any person has made residential
accommodation."

3. Survey and land plan of Rural
Abadi Site and Demarcation of Peripheral
Boundary.-(1) The Authority shall as soon
as possible carry out a planning survey and
prepare plan along with the sketch map of
the Rural Abadi Sites in which the
following shall be shown:

(a)
The
plots available
for
regularisation for residential purpose and
the plot reserved for other purpose under
the Village Development Schemes.

(b) Village-wise complete list,
maps, location and size of rural abadi sites
within the industrial development area,
irrespective of the fact whether after
declaration as industrial development area,
the land has been acquired or process of
acquisition initiated or land is not acquired
with specific remarks as to in whose
possession each site is.

(c) The location of the plots and
use of land within Rural Abadi Sites.