Development Authority Itself Faulted In Not Delivering Physical Possession Of Plot By Not Executing Correction Deed: Allahabad High Court Grants Relief To Allottee

The Petitioner had approached the High Court seeking quashing of the orders of the Additional Chief Secretary, Industrial Development Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow and the Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, cancelling the allotment of the Petitioner.

The Single Bench of Justice Prakash Padia said, “Thus the development authority itself had faulted in not delivering the physical possession of the plot as per the changed layout plan, by not executing the correction/surrender deed and not taking final decision on the application for grant of permission for construction. The failure has been on part of the development authority for which the petitioner cannot be penalized.”

Advocate Sudhanshu Kumar represented the Petitioner while Advocate Anjali Upadhya represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A group of companies, including the petitioner's company, was allotted a group housing Plot having an area of 64,000 square meters. A plot was allotted to the petitioner. A lease deed in pursuance of the aforesaid letter of allotment was executed between the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (development authority) and the petitioner. The total premium payable by the petitioner was calculated at Rs 53,24,00,000. 20% of the aforesaid amount was paid by the petitioner before execution of the lease deed. It was the petitioner’s case that the physical possession of the aforesaid plot was not handed over to him. Moreover, by the impugned orders, the allotment of the petitioner was cancelled. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noticed that the possession of the changed site plan was not handed over to the petitioner. No correction/supplementary deed had been executed by the development authority following the amended/corrected layout plan.

“Thus, it is established that the respondent-development authority has failed to communicate the change in layout plan to the petitioner and delivered the actual physical possession as per the changed layout plan. The development authority has failed to execute the correction/ supplementary deed in favour of the petitioner, as per the changed layout plan, whereas in similar circumstances, the correction deed has been executed by the development authority in favour of M/s Shirja Real Estate Solutions Pvt. Ltd., another member of the same consortium”, it said.

It was further noted by the Bench that no actual physical possession was handed over to the petitioner. As per the changed site plan, no correction/surrendered deed had been executed by the development authority. “As the physical possession of the plot, as per the amended site plan has not been handed over and in absence of correction/surrender deed executed between the parties making liability upon the petitioner to make payment of premium is contrary to the terms and conditions of the lease deed and thus, cannot be a ground for cancellation of the allotment”, it said.

As per the Bench, in view of the inaction on part of the development authority in deciding the application for grant of permission for construction, the petitioner could not float the construction plan and could not collect the funds from the market to be paid to the development authority.

Thus, allowing the petition, the Bench set aside the impugned orders.

Cause Title: M/S Kinetic Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:96738)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Sudhanshu Kumar, Swapnil Kumar

Respondent: Advocate Anjali Upadhya, C.S.C., Advocate Shivam Yadav

Click here to read/download Order