Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2325 of 2019 Petitioner :- Srikrishan Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Gupta,Chandra Bhan Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjali Upadhya
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
The grievance of the petitioner is that Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority has allotted Plot No. 113, Ebony Estate, Sector PHI-4 vide allotment order dated 4.6.2014. In pursuance of the said allotment order the petitioner has deposited requisite premium and a lease deed has been executed on 28.3.2018. A copy of the lease deed is on the record as annexure-3 to the writ petition. However, after executing the said lease deed the respondent vide impugned notice dated 13.4.2016 is demanding additional premium pursuant to judgment of this Court in the case of Gajraj and others v. State of U.P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37443 of 2011 wherein this Court has directed the respondents therein to pay 64.7% additional compensation and a further direction was given for allotment of developed abadi plots to the extent of 10% of the acquired land subject to certain conditions. Our attention has been invited by learned counsel for the petitioner to a similar order dated 18.12.2018 passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 42238 of 2018 (M/s Himalaya Realestate Pvt Ltd v. State of U.P. and 2 others). Relevant part of the said order reads as under:
"Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the petitioner can raise the issue before the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 41 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 read with Section 12 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the State Government under the aforesaid provisions. In case the petitioner files a revision within three weeks, the same shall be considered by the State Government on merit expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of filing of the revision, and shall not be rejected on the ground of limitation. We also permit the petitioner to move an application in the revision for interim protection. Till the said application is decided, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. We make it clear that if the revision is not filed within three weeks, the interim protection granted by this Court shall automatically stand vacated."
We have heard Sri C.B. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri B.B. Jauhari, learned Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4. They are agreed that this writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the aforementioned order.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 18.12.2018, quoted herein above, passed in M/s Himalaya Realestate Pvt Ltd (supra).
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 24.1.2019 Digamber