CASE SUMMARY

Anand Info edge Private Limited -------Applicant

Vs.
1. New Okhla Industrial Development authority, Sector 6, Noida.
2. Greater Noida Industrial development authority, plot number 1, knowledge park,
Noida.
--------Respondents

The Petitioner is filing the present Writ Petition seeking an issuance of a Writ, Order or
Direction in Mandamus commanding the Respondents to perform and fulfil the obligations of
handing over the unencumbered land to the petitioner as agreed under the Lease Deed dated
21.08.2008. (Hereinafter referred to as "the said Lease Deed"), executed by the Respondent
No.1 in favor of the Petitioner.

Facts:

The petitioner signed a lease deed with the respondent for 90 years for land measuring
1,00,980 sq mt. at the rate of Rs. 4,998/- per sq. mt. The petitioner was obligated to pay 30%
of the premium for the above mentioned area as upfront payment and accordingly the
petitioner paid amount of Rs. 14,99,40,000/- as upfront payment before execution of the lease
deed. The petitioner was only liable to pay Rs. 10,43,88,288/- which was 30% of the total
amount of 69,620 sq. mt. area whereas the petitoner has paid for 1,00,980 sq mt. The amount
was to be paid in 16 equal installments along with interest of 14% per annum compounded
half yearly. The respondent in clause 28(xi) of the lease deed claimed that the land is free
from any encroachment and obstruction. The petitioner soon started facing agitations by the
farmers regarding the land as certain areas of the land were still not acquired by the
respondent no.1. Respondent no. 1 issued a notice to the petitioner that they had failed to
complete the project on time and it was necessary in terms of the lease deed and there was
further pending payment of the lease rent. Non- payment of such charges would ultimately
lead to cancellation of lease deed.

The Tehsildar confirmed that the Khasra No. 877,888,882 and 826 are not in the name of the
respondent no. 1 and the same is still registered under the name of the farmers/society. The
disputed land is in the middle of the said land, and it has become impossible for the petitioner
to complete the said project. It was assured by the additional chief executive of Respondent
no. 1 that the matter will be resolved but later there was no response from the respondent.
Having no other alternative, the Petitioner was constrained to file a Civil Suit bearing No.662
of 2017 before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. (hereinafter referred
to as "the said Suit"), wherein an interim Order, dated 10.11.2017 was passed in favor of the
Petitioner, whereby the Respöndent No.1 was stayed from enforcing the demand for payment
of penalty till the pendency of the said Suit.

Issues:
  The petitioner believing the representations and assurances of the respondent no.1
launched the project “festival city”. Respondent no.1 was liable to to hand over the
land measuring 1,00,980 sq. mt, whereas the land that was handed over is only
69,620sq. mt only. Land totaling 3.7590 hectare was not acquired by the respondent
no.1 and on account of false representation by the respondent the petitioner is facing
aggressive agitation and blockages due to which the construction has been halted and
there is delay in completion of the said project.
 The petitioner had received a letter dated 25.05.2017 from the respondent regarding
the cancellation of lease deed due to delay in completion of the project and huge
amount was also pending towards the lease rent with respect to the said land. It is
important to note here that the Respondent no. 1 has been enjoying excess amount of
Rs. 4,55,51,772/- since 21.08.2008 till today for which respondent no.1 is liable to
pay interest as agreed under the lease deed at the rate of 14% per annum compounded
half yearly, which comes out to be Rs. 8,89,24,517/- till 20.03.2019. Therefore, the
respondent needs to make payment of Rs. 13,44,76,289/- to the petitioner.
 The respondent despite having knowledge of that the entire land is not free from
encumbrance had still approved the mortgage applied by the petitioner. The Tehsildar
had also confirmed that the Khasra no. 877,888,882 and 826 are not in the name of
the respondent due to which the project has been halted, due to that same the
petitioner has received letter from Uttar Pradesh RERA, which directs the petitioner
to complete the pending project otherwise registration certificate for the said project
will be cancelled.
 Farmer agitation had delayed the completion of the project which happened due to the
acts and omissions on part of the respondent no. 1 and the petitoner cannot be made to
suffer for the same.

Conclusion:

 It is alleged by the respondent authority that the petitioner has not completed the
project on time whereas the respondent authority itself gave possession of the whole
Plot on papers which was encumbered by the Samiti and the respondent authority
chose to remain silent despite having the knowledge about the same.
 The issues raised by the respondent authority in the counter affidavit are pending
adjudication before the district court and the same has been raised herein only to
create unnecessary controversy and prejudice the case of the petitioner.
 It is the submission of the respondent authority that the construction period is to be
computed from the sanctioned layout plan and from the possession letter as stated in
the counter affidavit. It shows clear intent of respondent to prejudice the case of
petitioner.
 The respondent authority has alleged that the petitioner has fraudulently sold villa and
flats in the present project which is not in consonance with the purpose with which the
plot was allotted. On the other hand the respondent authority in the written statement
before the district court has admitted that the applications, were submitted by the
 Petitioner for increase in the residential units FAR from 10 % to 25 % and the same
has not been declined by the Respondent Authority.
 All the allegations made by the Respondent Authority regarding the fraudulent sale of
residential units by the Petitioner in the present project, further falls flat, as on date,
there is not even a single residential unit allotted or sold by the Petitioner in the
present project, therefore all the allegations being made by the Respondent Authority
are false.
 It is further submitted that the Respondent Authority has alleged that prior to the year
2016, the Petitioner was handed over the possession of the whole of the said Plot
leased out in the Lease Deed, dated 21.08.2008, and it was only on 14.01.2016 that
the land forming part of the Petitioner's said Plot, was allotted to the Samiti by
Greater Noida Authority.
 The above submission of the Respondent Authority is false as the same is also
contrary to the counter affidavit filed by the Greater Noida Authority, which clearly
states that the part of the land of the said Plot, always belonged to the Samiti, even
before the Respondent Authority was formed. The land forming part of the said Plot
belonging to the Samiti was also transferred in the name of Greater Noida Authority
but same was again transferred back in Samiti's name by Greater Noida Authority
vide Sale Deed, dated 18.01.2016.
 The Respondent Authority is stating that the land which belongs to Samiti, forms part
of the Khasra No.826, 877, 882 and 888 and out of these only Khasra no.877 is the
one that falls in the portion of the said Plot of the Petitioner and the same is only 1840
square meters.
 It is submitted that the above averment of the Respondent Authority is also false, as
could also be seen from the counter affidavit filed by the Greater Noida Authority. It
is submitted that the Greater Noida in its counter affidavit has clearly stated that the
dispute raised by the Petitioner, is in regard to land admeasuring 3.759 Hectares, of
Khata No.402 and Khasra No.877 (para 10 of counter affidavit), which clearly shows
that the land which has not been handed over to the Petitioner is not 1840 square
meters but is 3.759 Hectares and the same is in possession of Samiti even today.
 It is further submitted that the Petitioner is not only being effected by the non-handing
over the possession of the above portion of land, but is also aggrieved by the fact that
the Respondent Authority represented that the land surrounding the said Plot also
belonged to the Respondent Authority and the same shall be developed by building
approaching roads and amenities which will provide connectivity to the project of the
Petitioner. It is submitted that the Respondent Authority itself has admitted as well as
the same can be seen from the map attached by the Respondent Authority at page 42,
that the remaining land forming part of the Samiti's land i.e. Khasra No. 826, 882 and
888 are surrounding the said Plot of the Petitioner and unless and until, the same are
not acquisitioned by the Respondent Authority for developing approaching roads and
amenities, the representations believing which the Petitioner sought allotment of the
said Plot, falls flat and the same leads to misrepresentation by the Respondent
Authority. It is further submitted that admittedly the Respondent Authority has not
 acquired the remaining khasaras out of the 3.759 hectares, out of which some of the
Khasra Numbers are located on the road having access to the plot of the Petitioner
Company as well as the group company of the Petitioner namely Dhoomketu Builder
and Developers Private Limited, and a separate petition in this respect has been filed
by Dhoomketu also before this Hon'ble Court. Due to such conduct of the Respondent
Authority, no development of that sector can take place and as such the Respondent
Authority would not be able to deliver the developed infrastructure in that sector. In
this view it is pertinent that the Respondent Authority be directed to deliver the
unencumbered land including the access to the Petitioner as well as the group
allottees.
 It is further submitted that, unless and until the surrounding area of the said Plot is
developed by the Respondent Authority, the project being developed by the Petitioner
would not receive the recognition and would not be financially viable as was
anticipated by the Petitioner. The Respondent Authority is ought to fulfil all the
representations it gave the Petitioner at the time of floating the bid of the said Plot and
cannot back at this moment.
 the allegation of the Respondent Authority that the Director of the Petitioner
Company is behind bars is false and misleading as none of the Director of the
Petitioner Company is behind bars. Mr. Satinder Singh Bhasin is not the Director of
Petitioner Company and the Petitioner Company reserves its right to take appropriate
legal recourse against Respondent Authority for such false allegations.