# Shipra Sristhi Apartment Owners Association (Regd.) v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 459
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-01-05
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 13298 of 2020
- **Bench:** Pankaj Naqvi, Piyush Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shipra-sristhi-apartment-owners-association-regd-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46774
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

(A) Civil law - Home-buyers - U.P.
Apartment
(Promotion
of
Construction,
Ownership
and
Maintenance)
Act,
2010
-
U.P.
Apartment Act, 2010 - U.P. Industrial
Area Development Act, 1976 - Object
of the Act - To give primacy to the
interest of the owners of apartments
and protection of their rights against
arbitrary and profit oriented actions
of the promoters / builders in which a
role of an arbiter has been assigned to
the
competent
authority
in
the
Development Authority.(Para -3)
460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Judicial notice taken by court - late large
number of cases - on behalf of home-buyers -
who after having spent their hard-earned life
savings, buy an apartment, only to face
hostile
and
arbitrary
actions
from
the
promoters/builders/Development Authorities -
instead of resolving such disputes, they
become mute spectators -there is an element
of huge public interest involved in respect of
each and every home-buyer whose legitimate
grievance is to be addressed within the
parameters of agreement and law. (Para -
4,7)

HELD:- A general mandamus is issued to
the
Competent
Authorities
under
U.P.
Apartment Act, 2010 & U.P. Industrial Area
Development Act, 1976 or any other cognate
enactment to decide the grievance of the
home-buyers or their associations, positively
within 3 months from the date the grievance
is brought to their knowledge, by reasoned
and speaking order under intimation to the
aggrieved persons.The Competent Authority
shall ensure that before any decision is taken,
a right of audience is given to the parties
concerned.(Para - 8,9)

Writ petition disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited :-

M/s Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vice
Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority,
2013 (9) ADJ 594

## Text

1 All. Shipra Sristhi Apartment Owners Association (Regd.) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
459
and
others
Vs.
Kannadapara
Sanghatanegala Okkuta & Kannadigara
and others, 2002(10) SCC 226 it was held
that it is not the function of the Court to
decide location or situs of the headquarter
since it is the function of Government and
it was followed in Collector and others
Vs. P. Mangamma and others, 2003(4)
SCC 488. Similar is the view taken in
State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs. Lata
Arun, 2002(6) SCC 252 and Premium
Granites and Another vs. State of Tamil
Nadu and Others, 1994(2) SCC 691.

9. In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs.
High
Court
of
Himachal
Pradesh,
2000(10) SCC 646 a direction was issued by
the Court to construct road. It was seriously
deprecated by Apex Court holding that it
amounts to financial indiscipline since it is
within the domain of Government and not
Court. Similar is the view taken in J.R.
Raghupathy and Ors. Vs. State of A.P. and
Ors. AIR 1988 SC 1681 and Federation of
Railway Officers Association and Ors. Vs.
Union of India, 2003(4) SCC 289.

10. In Samvidhan Bahali Andolan
and Anr. vs. Union of India (UOI) and
Ors., AIR 1998 All 210 the Court said that
creation of revenue districts etc. is the internal
arrangement of State and a policy matter to
be decided by the Government. It is not to be
interfered by the Court unless it is shown that
there is some violation of statutory provision.

11. No such violation of any statutory
provision could be shown by learned counsel
for petitioner in the case in hand. He,
however, placed reliance on Apex Court's
decision in Baldev Singh Vs. State of
Himanchal Pradesh AIR 1987 SC 1239.
Having gone through the aforesaid decision,
in our view, the same has no application at all
the the facts of this case and, therefore, does
not help the petitioner in any manner.

12. In view of above, we do not find
any merit in the writ petition.

13. Dismissed.
----------
(2021)01ILR A459
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.01.2021

BEFORE

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

Writ C No. 13298 of 2020

Shipra
Sristhi
Apartment
Owners
Association (Regd.) ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Abhinav Gaur, Sri Anoop Trivedi (Senior
Adv.), Sri Vibhu Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ravi Prakash Pandey, Sri Rohan
Gupta, Sri Tarun Agrawal, Sri Ravi Kant

(A) Civil law - Home-buyers - U.P.
Apartment
(Promotion
of
Construction,
Ownership
and
Maintenance)
Act,
2010
-
U.P.
Apartment Act, 2010 - U.P. Industrial
Area Development Act, 1976 - Object
of the Act - To give primacy to the
interest of the owners of apartments
and protection of their rights against
arbitrary and profit oriented actions
of the promoters / builders in which a
role of an arbiter has been assigned to
the
competent
authority
in
the
Development Authority.(Para -3)
460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Judicial notice taken by court - late large
number of cases - on behalf of home-buyers -
who after having spent their hard-earned life
savings, buy an apartment, only to face
hostile
and
arbitrary
actions
from
the
promoters/builders/Development Authorities -
instead of resolving such disputes, they
become mute spectators -there is an element
of huge public interest involved in respect of
each and every home-buyer whose legitimate
grievance is to be addressed within the
parameters of agreement and law. (Para -
4,7)

HELD:- A general mandamus is issued to
the
Competent
Authorities
under
U.P.
Apartment Act, 2010 & U.P. Industrial Area
Development Act, 1976 or any other cognate
enactment to decide the grievance of the
home-buyers or their associations, positively
within 3 months from the date the grievance
is brought to their knowledge, by reasoned
and speaking order under intimation to the
aggrieved persons.The Competent Authority
shall ensure that before any decision is taken,
a right of audience is given to the parties
concerned.(Para - 8,9)

Writ petition disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited :-

M/s Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vice
Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority,
2013 (9) ADJ 594

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

1. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, the
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Vibhu
Rai
for
the
petitioner,
Sri
Akhhileshwar Singh, learned standing
counsel for the State and Sri Ravi Kant, the
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Rohan
Gupta
for
the
Development
Authority.

2. The State of U.P. taking
cognizance of the rise in population and
demand for space specially for residential
purposes
enacted
U.P.
Apartment
(Promotion of Construction, Ownership
and Maintenance) Act, 2010 (for short "the
Act").

3. The object of the Act is to give
primacy to the interest of the owners of
apartments and protection of their rights
against arbitrary and profit oriented actions
of the promoters / builders in which a role
of an arbiter has been assigned to the
competent authority in the Development
Authority as held in M/s Designarch
Infrastructure
Pvt.
Ltd.
vs.
Vice
Chairman,
Ghaziabad
Development
Authority, 2013 (9) ADJ 594.

4. We take judicial notice that of late
large number of cases are coming to this
Court on behalf of home-buyers who after
having spent their hard-earned life savings,
buy an apartment, only to face hostile and
arbitrary
actions
from
the
promoters/builders/Development
Authorities and instead of resolving such
disputes, they become mute spectators.
This is the genesis of the present petition.

5. The petitioner, a registered
association of home-buyers, has preferred
this writ petition highlighting several
irregularities
in
violation
of
their
agreements on the part of the respondent
no. 3 being the developer-co-promoter of a
residential project "Shipra Shritsti", owned
and floated by M/s Shipra Estate Limited &
Jay Krishan Estates Developers Pvt. Ltd
which despite several representations to the
competent authority/respondent no. 2, have
gone unattended.

6. Sri Ravi Kant, the learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Sri Rohan Gupta for
the
Development
Authority
and
Sri
1 All. Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
461
Akhileshwar Singh, the learned standing
counsel for the State submit that it would
be in the fitness of things and in the ends of
justice that this petition is disposed of with
the direction to the Competent Authority
under the Act to take a decision on the
grievance of the petitioner, after hearing the
parties concerned, in accordance with law.

7. We appreciate the fair stand taken
by all concerned. However, as indicated
above, there is an element of huge public
interest involved in respect of each and
every
home-buyer
whose
legitimate
grievance is to be addressed within the
parameters of agreement and law.

8. We deem appropriate to issue a
general mandamus to the Competent
Authorities to dispose of the grievance of
the home-buyers within a stipulated period
so as to obviate an individual home-buyer
or a registered association, as the case may
be, from approaching this Court time and
again. The benefit of this order shall also be
extended
to
the
competent
authority
envisaged under U.P. Industrial Area
Development Act, 1976 and other cognate
enactments.

9. The writ petition is disposed of
with the following directions:-

(i) A general mandamus is issued
to the Competent Authorities under U.P.
Apartment Act, 2010 & U.P. Industrial
Area Development Act, 1976 or any other
cognate enactment to decide the grievance
of the home-buyers or their associations,
positively within 3 months from the date
the
grievance
is
brought
to
their
knowledge, by reasoned and speaking order
under intimation to the aggrieved persons.

(ii) The Competent Authority
shall ensure that before any decision is
taken, a right of audience is given to the
parties concerned.

(iii) The Competent Authority
shall ensure that an officer not below the
rank
of
a
Gazetted
Officer
shall
periodically visit the apartment / building at
least once in 6 months at a prior notice to
the registered association which shall be
obliged to circulate it amongst its member
so as to give them an opportunity to
ventilate their grievance, if any. Any
reported violation shall be immediately
brought to the notice of the Authority
concerned which shall immediately take
remedial steps.

(iv) Any inaction on the part of
Competent Authority shall be construed as
serious dereliction of duty, warranting
interference from the State Government.

10. The Registrar General is directed
to communicate this order to the Principal
Secretary
(Urban
Development),
U.P.
Government, Lucknow, with a further
direction to circulate the same to all the
Competent Authorities concerned for due
compliance, forthwith.
----------
(2021)01ILR A461
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.11.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 18632 of 2020

Kuldeep Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: