# Smt. Sheela Rustagi & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 109
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-12
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 2255 of 2021
- **Bench:** Pritinker Diwaker, Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sheela-rustagi-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48719
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Civil Law
- U.P. Industrial Area
Development
Act,
1976-Petitioners
applied for flat under the scheme of
Greater Noida Industrial Development
Authority-The Authority failed to handover
the
flat
within
stipulated
periodPetitioners asked for refund of money-
allotment was subject to cancellation and
the entire deposited money was to be
forfeited by GNIDA with penal interest at
the rate of 15% on delayed payment as
per conditions specified in brochure-
GNIDA is required to pay the same with
interest at the rate of 15% per annum
compoundable quarterly.(Para 1 to 18)
The petition is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

Vinod Kumar Gautam & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & 3
ors. Writ C No. 33847 of 2019

## Text

8 All. Smt. Sheela Rustagi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
109
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 109
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 2255 of 2021
with
Writ C No. 760 of 2021
&
Writ C No. 18846 of 2020

Smt. Sheela Rustagi & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Desh Ratan Chaudhary

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

A. Civil Law
- U.P. Industrial Area
Development
Act,
1976-Petitioners
applied for flat under the scheme of
Greater Noida Industrial Development
Authority-The Authority failed to handover
the
flat
within
stipulated
periodPetitioners asked for refund of money-
allotment was subject to cancellation and
the entire deposited money was to be
forfeited by GNIDA with penal interest at
the rate of 15% on delayed payment as
per conditions specified in brochure-
GNIDA is required to pay the same with
interest at the rate of 15% per annum
compoundable quarterly.(Para 1 to 18)
The petition is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

Vinod Kumar Gautam & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & 3
ors. Writ C No. 33847 of 2019

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker, J.
&
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

1. All the above referred writ petitions
involve identical questions of law and facts.
The Writ Petition (C) No. 2255 of 2021 is
being treated as the leading writ petition
and the facts pertaining to the same is being
considered for deciding the controversy
involved.

2. Heard Shri Desh Ratan Chaudhary,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri
Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel
representing the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4
and
the
learned
Standing
Counsel
representing the respondent No. 1. Learned
counsel for the parties agree that pleadings
have been exchanged and the writ petitions
itself may be finally decided. Accordingly,
we proceed to finally decide the aforesaid
writ petitions.

3. The writ petition has been filed
praying for the issuance of writ of
mandamus commanding the Greater Noida
Industrial Development Authority to refund
the
entire
money
deposited
by
the
petitioners towards the alleged allotted flats
including
registration
fee
and
other
expenses borne by the petitioners such as
fee / stamp for execution of lease
deeds/agreement etc., along with 15%
compound interest on quarterly basis. A
further prayer to quash the impugned
communication
/
office
order
dated
14.8.2019 and communication / office
order dated 17.9.2019 issued by the
respondent No. 3- Addl. Chief Executive
Officer,
Greater
Noida,
Industrial
Development Authority, District Gautam
Budh Nagar (Annexure Nos. 4 & 8 to the
writ petition) has also been made.
110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. The writ petition (C) No. 2255 of
2021 has been filed with the allegations that
the Greater Noida Industrial Development
Authority (in short "GNIDA") has been
established by the Government of Uttar
Pradesh for industrial development and
besides other functions, it also provides
residential facilities to the common man by
launching various schemes. GNIDA is an
instrumentality of the State and its functions
relating to developments of land and other
schemes are governed by the provisions of U.
P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. In
the year 2013, the GNIDA launched a
scheme in 3 Sectors of Greater Noida,
namely, Sector Omicron-1, Omicron-1A and
Sector 12 for construction and allotment of
multistoried flats/ built up houses under
scheme Code BHS-17/2013. For construction
and for giving possession of the proposed
flats, a period of 3 years was prescribed. The
petitioners applied under the scheme for one
flat on the basis of cash down payment and
paid full amount. The petitioners in order to
make the payment towards the flat had taken
loan from Bank for making part payment and
thereafter they paid the installments fixed by
GNIDA together with 12% interest.

5. The petitioner No. 1 was allotted Flat
No. 103/H, Tower-H, Sector Omicron-1A
under allotment No. BHS173206 vide
allotment
letter
dated
29.1.2014.
The
petitioner No. 1 paid a sum of Rs.3,89,000/-
towards the registration money and further a
sum of Rs.8,37,295/- after adjustment of
registration money. The total admitted
amount deposited by petitioner No. 1 is
Rs.50,31,905/-. Likewise, the petitioner No. 2
was allotted flat No. 208/B, Tower-B, Sector
Omicron-1A
under
allotment
No.
BHS172681 vide allotment letter dated
29.1.2014. The petitioner No. 2 paid a sum of
Rs.2,57,000/- towards registration money and
further
a
sum
of
Rs.5,53,180/-
after
adjustment of registration money towards
allotment.
The
total
admitted
amount
deposited
by
petitioner
No.
2
is
Rs.33,24,438/-.

6. It is contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that according to
the conditions and details disclosed in the
brochure of the aforesaid residential
scheme, the flats were required to be
handed over to the allottees within a period
of three years from the date of issue of the
allotment letter as per the declaration made
by GNIDA under the heading 'N' of the
brochure. A condition was also there that
the legal documentation and taking of
possession is required to be done by the
allottees within a period of 60 days from
the date of offer of possession and the
extension of time for that purpose was with
penalty / administration charges. On the
failure of the allottees to execute legal
documentation within the extended time,
the allotment was subject to cancellation
and the entire deposited money was to be
forfeited by GNIDA. The GNIDA is
charging penal interest at the rate of 15%
compound interest on quarterly basis on
delayed payment as is clear from the
brochure of the scheme. The GNIDA failed
to give possession of the aforesaid flats
within scheduled period of 3 years i.e.
January, 2017.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the petitioners approached
GNIDA authorities regarding the delay in
completion of the project but they could not
receive any definite and proper response or
assurance and were asked to wait.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners
further submits that the petitioners and
other allottees approached the respondent
GNIDA authorities from time to time, but
8 All. Smt. Sheela Rustagi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
111
they were asked to wait for one or two
months but without any definite assurance
or plan. In the year 2018, the petitioners
were informed by the office of the
respondent No. 4 that they will get the flats
ready in June, 2018 and will get the
possession of the flats.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that considering the delay in getting
possession of the flats the petitioners and
some of the other allottees started searching
for alternative accommodations and also
finalized it and approached the GNIDA
authorities to refund their amount deposited
against the allotment of the proposed flats but
the GNIDA authorities did not pay any heed
for the redressal of the grievances of the
petitioners and assured that possession of the
flats would be given upto June, 2019.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the Additional CEO, GNIDA
issued the impugned office order dated
14.8.2019 mentioning therein that under built
up housing scheme BHS-17, the possible date
for possession of flats was scheduled to be
handed over to the allottees of flats of Sector
Omicron-1A in the month of June, 2019 but
the delay is occurring in the handing over
possession for unavoidable reasons and
hence, they are being offered relocation of
flats in other sectors of the scheme which is
completely developed and is ready for
possession, however, the flats in those
scheme are subject to increase of value/cost
and if the allottees are not ready to accept
accommodations, they can surrender their
allotments and take back their amount after
deduction of 10% of the deposited amount
without any interest. The petitioners objected
to the conditions of the office order dated
14.8.2019 and made representations against
the same.

11. It is next contended that GNIDA
authority despite giving assurance for
handing over possession of the flats allotted
failed to complete the project and failed to
give possession of the flats. Instead the
GNIDA authority issued another office
order dated 17.9.2019 with one more offer
to the effect that the allottees who want to
stick to their allotment/allotted flats may
wait till the completion of those flats in
Sector
Omicron-1A
subject
to
their
acceptance in writing within 30 days. The
other conditions of the order dated
14.8.2019 remained same in the office
order dated 17.9.2019 issued by the
respondent No. 3.

12.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners submits that the petitioners are
now interested in refund of their entire
money deposited against the flats together
with interest from the date of deposit and
press their prayer No. 1 only and the prayer
made in the writ petition be confined to
relief No. 1 only.

13.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners have placed reliance upon a
decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court rendered in Writ-C No. 33847 of
2019 (Vinod Kumar Gautam and 4 others
versus State of U.P. and 3 others) dated
26.11.2019 whereby the co-ordinate Bench
partly allowed the writ petition with
direction to the respondents to refund the
entire amount of the petitioners within two
months from the date of production of
certified copy of the order along with 15%
interest from the date of deposit. The
learned counsel submits that the petitioners
are equally circumstanced inasmuch as the
petitioners of the Writ Petition (C) No.
33847 of 2019 were the allottees under the
same scheme of GNIDA.
112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh,
learned counsel representing the respondent
Nos. 2 to 4, who has filed counter affidavit,
does not dispute the fact as argued and
mentioned in the writ petition. He submits
that due to circumstances beyond the
control of the authority, construction of the
flats have been delayed and the orders
dated 14.8.2019 and 17.9.2019 have been
issued as per the terms of the brochure. He
further submits that the money would be
refunded as per the terms of the brochure of
GNIDA after deduction of 10% along with
interest @ 4% per annum.

15.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners
vehemently
opposed
the
arguments made by Shri Ramendra Pratap
Singh, learned counsel for the respondent
Nos. 2 to 4 and submits that as per
Condition-F of the brochure of GNIDA
"Mode of Payment" in case of default of
payment, petitioners are required to pay the
same with interest at the rate of 15% per
annum compoundable quarterly, therefore,
GNIDA is also liable to return the entire
amount along with the same interest.

16. We have considered the rival
submissions made by the learned counsels
for the parties and have perused the
record.

17. We have also gone through the
decision dated 26.11.2019 of the coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Writ
Petition (C) No. 33847 of 2019. The SLP
against the said decision has also been
dismissed by the Apex Court vide its
decision dated 20.11.2020. We are of the
view that the petitioners are also entitled to
the same benefit as extended to the
petitioners of Writ Petition (C) No. 33847
of 2019 particularly, in view of the fact that
it relates to the same scheme.

18. In view of the above, considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, the
writ petitions are partly allowed with
direction to the respondents to refund the
entire amount of the petitioners deposited
by them against the flats allotted within 2
months from the date of production of
certified copy of this order along with 9%
interest from the date of deposit. Petitioners
are also entitled to costs quantified at
Rs.20,000/- each.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 112
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ C No. 3283 of 2022

Dr. Richa Shukla ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Prabhu Ranjan Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Shubham Tripathi

A. Civil Law -Selection/Admission in NEET
SS-Petitioner was ranked at Serial No. 7,
the petitioner had to await his turn
subject to six candidates-the said seats
were filled- candidate at Serial No. 6
subsequently
resigned-petitioner
expected that the said seat would be
available
in
the
mop-up
round
of
counselling but the said seat was not
included in the vacant seat as the MCC of
DGHS does not allow resignation as per
the policy-It is well settled that the seats
should not go vacant and should be filled,
only on account of the fact that there is no
provision contained in the online portal to
include the seats vacated on account of
resignation,
the
said
technical
glitch