Case Note & Summary
These civil appeals arose from the final judgment and order dated 19.07.2024 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Writ-C Nos. 9348 and 21276 of 2023, and 7223 of 2024. The dispute concerned the entitlement of a commercial plot developer to the benefit of NOIDA's Zero Period Policy, which provides for rescheduling of instalments and waiver of penal interest when construction is stalled due to specified reasons including encroachment, lack of access roads, and court stay orders. NOIDA, the appellant authority, had allotted Plot No. 5-A, Sector 94, Noida to the respondent developer under a lease deed dated 11.01.2012 for development of a commercial complex. The developer could not proceed with full construction initially because of an interim order of the National Green Tribunal restraining construction within 10 km of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary; the restraint operated from 17.09.2013 to 19.08.2015. After the restraint was lifted, the developer alleged that the 45-metre front road remained encroached and unacquired, and the 24-metre side road was unpaved and non-motorable. The developer made representations and, on 15.10.2016, first claimed Zero Period Policy benefit on grounds of the NGT restraint and lack of access roads. NOIDA granted benefit for the NGT period from 14.08.2013 to 28.10.2013 and penal interest exemption from 29.10.2013 to 19.08.2015, but referred the access road issue to the Tehsildar for verification. The Tehsildar's report dated 14.02.2019 recorded that the 45-metre road land was 'Abadi' land, never acquired, and encroached, and that the access road was blocked. Despite this, NOIDA's committee rejected the access-road claim and the CEO passed an order dated 14.02.2020 rejecting the benefit, holding that alternative access existed via the 24-metre road and partly the 45-metre road. The developer filed a revision before the State Government under Section 41(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 read with Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. The developer also filed a complaint before UPRERA seeking possession free from encumbrances, compensation, and construction of roads. During UPRERA proceedings, NOIDA completed the 24-metre side road on 18.02.2020. UPRERA by order dated 22.10.2020 rejected the complaint as not maintainable and directed the developer to pursue statutory remedies under the 1973 and 1976 Acts, but noted from its technical inspection report that the 45-metre road had not been constructed and existing habitation remained. The Allahabad High Court's judgment in the writ petitions is impugned in these civil appeals. The provided text does not include the Supreme Court's final reasoning, findings or operative directions.
Headnote
A) Urban Planning - Zero Period Policy - Policy Conditions for Benefit - NOIDA Zero Period Policy provides for rescheduling of instalments and waiver of penal interest where construction is stalled due to lack of access road, encroachment, or court stay - Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 - The Developer sought benefit for NGT restraint period and lack of 45m/24m roads; NOIDA granted partial benefit for NGT period but rejected access-road ground despite Tehsildar report confirming 45m road encroached and unacquired. The court examined whether rejection aligned with policy conditions (Paras 5-9). B) Statutory Remedies - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 41(3) Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 read with Section 12 Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 - Against CEO order rejecting zero period benefit, Developer filed revision before State Government; this statutory remedy was pending when UPRERA complaint was rejected as not maintainable with direction to pursue alternative remedies (Paras 10-12). C) Real Estate Regulation - UPRERA Jurisdiction - Maintainability of Complaints - UPRERA rejected complaint as not maintainable when alternative statutory remedies existed but recorded factual findings on road non-construction - UPRERA's technical inspection confirmed 45m road not constructed and existing habitation remained (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Developer was entitled to Zero Period Policy benefit on account of NGT restraint order and non-availability of access roads; and whether the High Court's interference with the rejection was justified.
Law Points
- Zero Period Policy entitles allottees to rescheduling of instalments and waiver of penal interest where construction is impossible due to encroachment
- lack of access roads
- or court stay orders
- authority must verify access road claims through field reports
- UPRERA may reject a complaint as not maintainable when alternative statutory remedies exist under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act
- 1973 and the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act
- 1976
