High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. All the aforesaid writ petitions have been clubbed and heard together as they involve similar issue, and hence, they are being decided by this common judgement and order.

2. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prateek Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Mohan Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent nos.1 and 3 and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh and Ms. Anjali Gokhlani, learned counsel for respondent no. 2-Noida Authority. FACTS OF THE CASE

3. Board of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority1 took a decision on 16.8.2004 to develop sports facilities of international standards in NOIDA. In the next meeting held on 25.6.2007 the Board came to a conclusion that since there are no sports facilities available in 1 NOIDA 3 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. NOIDA, hence an area of 311.60 hectares was marked for development of the sports city. In the next Board meeting held on 8.4.2008, it was resolved, keeping the upcoming Commonwealth Games-2010 in mind, that the land use of Sector 76,78,79,101, 102, 104 and 107 be changed for the development of the sports city. However, the area earmarked to develop sports city was increased to 346 hectares. Accordingly, Grand Thorton was appointed to formulate the scheme and to lay down conditions for the allotment of the land. In the next Board meetings held on 18.9.2008 (154th Board Meeting), the amended Master-plan 2031 of NOIDA was considered, and for the first time, the details, as to what is expected in the sports city, were mentioned. Clause 5.9.3 of the Master plan laid down the details for the development of the sports city, which is extracted below:- “Development of a Sports City was proposed in the Central – Eastern part of Noida along the DSC Road. The proposed site is well linked by the proposed Master Plan roads connecting Expressway. National Highway-24, Greater Noida and other parts of the city. Noida Sports City envisions itself to be one of its kind in the Country, with a clear and defined focus on an integrated sports theme, its form providing a strong and such clearly identifiable image to Noida, where sports events catalyze other activities such as tourism, community meetings, exhibitions, conventions and festival. In order that the vision remains relevant, the sports and other related recreational and institutional facilities were proposed in the Sports City. Large size project of Sports-City could not be implemented. Therefore, the authority decided to have more than one projects of sports city of lesser sizes at different locations of the town. These Sports City projects would have about 50-100 hectares, or more land. The Sports City is basically a part of recreational land use and therefore its development is proposed in the recreational Green Area and a separate provision for permissible ground coverage and F.A.R. is proposed in the Building Regulations of Noida. Any project of Sports-City may have the provision of following Sports and related facilities, residential, commercial and other facilities as per the specific requirement decided by the authority for a particular project or scheme:- A golf course, golf club house and driving range, integrated with the i. residential and commercial areas and a cricket stadium with covered grandstand, provisions of electronic scoreboards, television video screens, competition lighting, meeting rooms, media facilities etc. A multi-purpose 4 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. playing field for athletics and football with practice nets, and competition lighting, synthetic turf laid hockey field, Indoor stadia for badminton and table tennis courts, weightlifting, boxing, gymnastics, karate etc., Indoor central court tennis centre, and Indoor swimming centre with pools- competition, warm-up and diving pool and other related facilities. Indoor and outdoor Stadium and playground may be added further as per the requirements. ii. Sports City may include a Sports Academy serving as a ‘centre of sports excellence’ with world class facilities and support services for a range of sports including Cricket, Tennis, Swimming, Athletics, & Golf etc. Practice areas could be incorporated within the sports grounds and facilities for competition and training. The academy may also include office accommodation, laboratories, lecture theatres and specialist facilities. The Sports City may have sports medicine/health facility centre to provide cutting edge sports science and sports medicine support. These should include-clinical services, sport sciences, nutrition, athlete and career education, applied research centre with the provisions of laboratories, officers and workshops. There shall be other facilities like Integrated Sports-hostels, dormitories and serviced apartments and other residential facilities within the walking distance to all venues Sports club, business and leisure facilities, meeting rooms and office accommodation shall be provided within the sports venues. iii. A network of roads shall be planned as a functional hierarchy to service the Sports City. Other facilities could include space for transport, entry and exit gates, passenger lounges, bridges and underpasses as required. Car parking facilities shall be suitably planned throughout the city. There shall be an IT Centre/Administration/Media block, and a major retail hub providing shopping facilities for the City. Residential and Commercial facilities should also be developed within the Sports-City area. The Sports-city projects shall be developed as an Integrated Mini- Township with all modern and world class sports and other related facilities. Minimum 70% of the total area would be utilized for sports activities. Institutional and other facilities, open spaces and other recreational activities. Noida Authority will determine the land use pattern, permissible activities, planning norms and other regulations as required time to time for the development of the Sports-city projects.”

4. For the development of the sports city, the brochure was finalised on 04.11.2008 and the procedure for the change of land use was initiated. The scheme seems to have been launched but could not be finalised. Thereafter, in September 2010, the area of the sports city was changed from 311 hectares to 150 hectares, Grand Thorton was asked to give a fresh detailed project report and thereafter, the reserved price was fixed as 5 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Rs.12,500/-per sq. meter. From 2010-11 to 2015-16, four sports city projects were launched on a total area of 798 acres, in which three golf courses, one cricket stadium, and other sports facilities of international standard were planned.

5. Thereafter, the Master Plan 2031 of Noida Authority was modified. The modification was as follows:- “1. Noida Sports City envisions itself to be one of its kind in the Country, with a clear and defined focus on an integrated sports theme, its form providing a strong and clearly identifiable image to NOIDA; where sports events catalyze other activities such as tourism, community meetings, exhibitions, conventions and festivals. In order that the vision remains relevant, the sports and other related recreational and institutional facilities were proposed in the Sport City.

2. Large size project of Sports-city could not be implemented. Therefore, the Authority decided to have more than one projects of sports city of lesser sizes at different locations of the town. These Sport City projects would have about 50-100 hectares, or more land.

3. The Sports City is basically a part of Recreational land use and therefore its development is proposed in the Recreational Green Area and a separate provision for permissible ground coverage and F.A.R. is proposed in the Building Regulations of Noida. Any project of Sports-city may have the provision of Sports and related facilities, residential, commercial and other facilities as per the specific requirement decided by the Authority for a particular project or scheme. Any project of sports city may have the following sports and related facilities:-

1. A golf course, golf club house and driving range, integrated with the residential and commercial areas and a cricket stadium with covered grandstand, provisions of electronic scoreboards, television video screens, competition lighting, meeting rooms, media facilities etc. A multi-purpose playing field for athletics and football with practice nets, and competition lighting, synthetic turf laid hockey field, Indoor stadium for badminton and table tennis courts, weightlifting, boxing, gymnastics, karate etc., Indoor central court tennis centre, and Indoor swimming centre with pools- competition, warm-up and diving pool and other related facilities. Indoor and outdoor Stadium and playground may be added further as per the requirements.

2. Sports City may include a Sports Academy serving as a ‘centre of sports excellence’ with world class facilities and support services for a range of 6 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. sports including Cricket, Tennis, Swimming, Athletics, & Golf etc. Practice areas could be incorporated with the sports grounds and facilities for competition and training. The academy may also include office accommodation, laboratories, lecture theatres and specialist facilities. The Sport-city may have sports medicine/health facility centre to provide cutting edge sports science and sports medicine support. These should include clinical centre with the provisions of laboratories, offices and workshops. There shall be other facilities like Integrated Sports-hostels, dormitories and services apartments and other residential facilities within the walking distance to all venues. Sports club, business and leisure facilities, meeting rooms and office accommodation shall be provided within the sports venues.

3. A network of roads shall be planned as a functional hierarchy to service the Sports city. Other facilities could include space for transport, entry and exit gates, passenger lounges bridges and under passes as required. Car parking facilities shall be suitably planned throughout the city. There shall be an IT Centre/Administration/Media block, and a major retail hub providing shopping facilities for the City. Residential and Commercial facilities should also be developed within the Sport-City area. The Sport-city projects shall be developed as an Integrated Mini- Township with all modern and world class sports and other related facilities. Minimum 70% of the total area would be utilized for sports activities, Institutional and other facilities, open spaces and other recreational activities. Noida Authority will determine the land use pattern, permissible activities, planning norms and other regulations as required time to time for the development of the Sport-city project.” PRESENT SPORTS CITY SCHEME 02 IN SECTOR 150

6. NOIDA, sometimes in the year 2014, floated a scheme known as “Sports City” which was to be developed in Sector 150 of NOIDA. The scheme was launched on 07.6.2014 and was to close on 26.06.2014. As per the Scheme, a Sports City was to be developed on a land parcel of 12,00,000 square meters in Sector 150 Noida. The reserve price for the scheme was set at Rs.18,865/- per square metre.

7. The developer was supposed to create sports facilities over 70% of the entire land allotted to them, which was not marketable, and to set off this expense the developer was allowed to construct group housing on 7 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

29.5% and 0.5% commercial on the total land with FAR of 2.0 on the total land area. The scheme clearly stated that the population density in this Sports City would be 1650 per hectare. The open/green area of the recreational component (i.e. sports activities such as Golf course, stadium etc. and open spaces) was to be considered as other open green areas for the entire land.

8. The relevant part of the Brochure is as follows:- “Eligibility Criteria “8. In case the tenderers have formed a consortium:- (a) Members of consortium will have to specify one Lead Member who alone shall be authorized to correspond with the NOIDA. Lead member should be the single largest shareholder having at least 30% share in the consortium. The shareholding of the lead member in the consortium shall remain at least 30% till the temporary occupancy/completion certificate of at least one phase of the project is obtained from the Noida. Each member of the consortium with equity stake of at least 05% will be considered as the ‘relevant member’. The Lead Member of the consortium must necessarily be a Firm/Company registered in India with the appropriate statutory Authority. (b) The lead member and the relevant members should jointly qualify the minimum requirement of net worth, solvency, turnover and experience. In case the tenderer is a consortium, then the qualifications of the holding company(ies) of the lead member and the relevant members or their subsidiary companies shall also be considered as the qualifications of the tenderer. (c) In case of Consortium, the members shall submit a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) conveying their intent to jointly apply for the scheme(s), and in case the plot is allotted to them, the MOA shall clearly define the role and responsibility of each member in the consortium, particularly with regard to arranging debt and equity for the project and its implementation. MOA should be submitted in original duty registered/notarized with appropriate authority. (d) The members shall submit a registered/notarized Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) conveying their intent to jointly apply for the scheme, and in case the plot is allotted to them, to form Special Purpose Company(ies), hereinafter called SPCs that will subsequently carry out all its responsibilities as the allottee. The registered MOA must specify the equity shareholding of each member of the Consortium in the proposed SPCs. The SPCs must mecessarily be Firm(s)/Company(ies) registered in 8 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. India with the appropriate statutory Authority. The allottee and in the case of consortium, the lead member and/or the relevant member and/or SPC(s) incorporated by them, put together, will have to construct on their own a minimum of 30% of the total permissible FAR on allotted area. In case of a consortium, the responsibility of construction of this 30% of the total permissible FAR shall be clearly specified in the MOA submitted by the consortium alongwith bid document. The allottee and the members of the consortium shall have the option to sub lease a maximum of 70% of land allotted to them as per the arrangements specified by them in the MOA. (e) Execution of more than one lease deeds can be made by sub dividing the plot in favour of the lead member and/or the relevant member(s) and/or Special Purpose Company(ies) (SPCs) formed by them, which should be firm(s) or incorporated company(ies) registered in India. However, the area of each of such sub-divided plot proposed for execution of lease deed, as described above, should not be less than 8,000 sq. mtrs. and the said sub- division should be in accordance with the planning norms of the NOIDA.

10. However, the lessee/Sub-lessee(s) will be allowed to transfer upto 100% of its shareholding, subject to the condition that the “Lead Member” (on the date of submission of the tender) shall continue to hold at least 30% of the shareholding in the SPC till the temporary occupancy/completion certificate at least one phase of the project is obtained from the NOIDA. In compliance with the Govt. Order No. 5007/11-5-2010500(50)/10 DATED 11 th October, 2010, issued by the Department of Tax & Registration, Government of Uttar Pradesh, the change in the name of shareholders does not amount to transfer of the property of the Company. The Change in Constitution Deed regarding change in the shareholders as a result of transfer of share in the Companies is not mandatory to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. In addition to this, no stamp duty of leviable on this CIC deed under Clause 23 of Schedule 1b of the Stamp Act, 1899. No transfer charges shall be leviable on the transfer of shares in the Companies and no prior approval of the NOIDA shall be required for transferring the shares. MODE OF PAYMENT AND PAYMENT PLAN

1. The successful bidder shall be issued an allotment letter for the acquired area and reservation letter for the balance unacquired area. Allotment letter(s) of the area(s) contiguous to the already acquired and allotted land shall be issued as and when the balance land (in full or parts) is acquired and available for handing over possession to the successful bidder.

7. In case of default in depositing the installments or any payment, interest @ 14% compounded half yearly shall be leviable for defaulted period on the defaulted amount. POSSESSION Possession of allotted land will be handed over to the Lessee after execution and registration of lease deed. 9 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. IMPLEMENTATION & COMPLETION OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

1. The Lessee shall be required to complete the construction of minimum 15% of the permissible area earmarked for sports, institutional and other facilities within a period of 3 years from the date of execution of Lease Deed and shall complete the project in phases within 5 years. However, the residential and commercial development/construction may be completed in phases within 7 years. Further more, the lessee has to develop residential and commercial component in the project in proportion to area earmarked for recreational uses. However, extension in exceptional circumstances can be granted by NOIDA, on payment of extension charges applicable as per prevailing policy at the time of granting such extension. Delays due to encroachment, force majure, legal issues like stay orders etc. shall be considered for extension. 2. The construction on the land shall have to be done as per the prescribed under these Terms and Conditions and the building regulations and directions of the NOIDA. COMPLETION

1. The ‘Completion Certificate’ will be issued by the NOIDA on the completion of the project or part thereof in phases and on the submission of the necessary documents required for certifying the completion of the project or part thereof. INDEMNITY

The lessee shall be wholly and solely responsible for the implementation of the Project and also ensuring the quality of development/constructions, subsequent operations and maintenance of the facilities and services, till such time as the alternate agency for such work is identified and legally appointed by the lessee after prior written approval of NOIDA. The lessee shall execute an Indemnity bond Indemnifying the NOIDA against all disputes arising out of: a) The non-completion of the project. b) The quality of development, construction, operations and maintenance. c) Any legal dispute arising out of allotment, lease and/or sub-lease to the final purchaser(s). GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS * Composite Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.0(subject to approval of state government) on the total gross area of the allotted land will be permissible, which is fungible/transferable in different land use components as prescribed. 10 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. * The obligations of the developer with respect to the development of sports, institutional and other facilities are prescribed in Annexure 2 of this document. Subject to provision of Master Plan and regulation of NOIDA: The lessee shall be entitled to sub-lease the sports, other facilities and institutional activity, with prior approval of NOIDA/Lessor. * Commercial and residential area can be sub-leased without any approvals on tripartite agreement basis. * The transfer of whole plot and sub-lease of built up space shall be governed by the transfer policy prevailing at the time of such transfer or sub-lease of built up space. * Without obtaining the completion certificate the lessee shall have the right to sub-divide the allotted plot into suitable smaller plot as per the planning norms of the NOIDA only for the area available for residential and commercial use and to transfer the same to the interested parties, if any, with the prior approval of the NOIDA on payment of transfer charges at the rate prevailing on the date of transfer. However, the area of each of such sub-divided plot should not be less than 8,000 sq. mtrs. *After the written approval of the Lessor/NOIDA Authority, the lessee can implement/develop the project through its multiple subsidiary companies in which the allottee/lessee company shall have minimum 90% equity share holdings (such subsidiaries are exempted from stamp duty for transaction between parent company and subsidiary company under the provisions of Indian Stamp Act as per the State Government notification). * For the first transfer of land/built-up area through sub-lease no additional charges or transfer charges shall be payable by lessee to NOIDA or any Authority. * Sub lease of land/built-up area shall be allowed on the basis of approved layout and building plans by NOIDA. OTHER CLAUSES

1. The Authority/Lessor reserves the right to make such additions/alterations or modifications in the terms and conditions of allotment/lease deed/sub lease deed from time to time, as may be considered just and expedient.

2. In case of any clarification or interpretation regarding these terms and conditions, the decision of the NOIDA shall be final and binding.

7. The NOIDA will monitor the implementation of the project. Applicants who do not have a firm commitment to implement the project within the time limits prescribed are advised not to avail the allotment.

11. All arrears due to the Lessor/Lessee(s) would be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. 11 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

12. The NOIDA in larger public interest may take back the possession of the land/building by paying a reasonable(s) compensation. The decision in this regard shall be final and binding on the lessee/sub-lessee(s). (Emphasis supplied)

9. The respondent no.2-NOIDA invited applications for allotment of Sports City on Plot No.SC-02 in Sector-150, NOIDA. As per the brochure, a Consortium was also allowed to participate. In terms of the Brochure a Consortium of M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt Ltd was constituted as a lead member along with following six companies who applied for allotment of this plot on 23.06.2014:- (i) M/s Three C Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (ii) M/s Three C Infra Square Pvt. Ltd. (iii) M/s Three C Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (iv) M/s Elate Realtor Pvt. Ltd. (v) M/s Three C Crest Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & (vi) M/s Allure Developers Pvt. Ltd.

10. The lead member M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt Ltd. was a subsidiary company of M/s Three C Universal Developers Pvt. Ltd. The application was made on the qualification of M/s Three C Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., which was also one of its group company. Surprisingly, Sports City 01/78-79 was also allotted to the same group of companies on the basis of the qualification of the same company i.e. M/s Three C Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.

11. The tenders were evaluated and after finding the bid of the Consortium most compliant (at a rate of Rs 19,400/- per sqm), the project was allotted to the Consortium and allotment letter was issued on various dates, as and when the possession of the land could be handed over to the allotee. 12 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

12. In the name of Lead Member of the Consortium namely, M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner company) for Plot No.SC-02, Sector-150, NOIDA. The total premium for the plot in the year 2014 was Rs.2,328,00,00,000/- (Rupees 2,328 crores). The allotment-cum- reservation letter was issued to the lead member on 10.9.2014, asking the allottee to pay 20% of the premium, and the balance 80 % was to be paid in 16 half yearly instalments (starting from 10.3.2015 and ending on

10.9.2022).

13. After payment of the upfront 20% of the premium, a formal letter was issued on 07.10.2014 and thereafter, Noida Authority executed various lease deeds and allotted a total area of 11,98,370.92 sq meters of land. The details of which are as follows:- “The details of lease deeds executed is as follows:- S.No. Party Name and Address Area (Sqm) Date of Execution of Lease Deed

9. M/s Lotus Greens Constructions Pvt. Ltd.-SC- 6,40,000.00

19.12.2014 01/A, Sector-150, Noida M/s Allure Developers Pvt. Ltd.- 60,000.00

19.12.2014 SC-02/C,Sector-150, Noida M/s Elate Realtors Pvt. Ltd.-SC-02/B, Sector- 1,00,000.00

19.12.2014 150, Noida M/s Crest Promoters Private Limited, SC-02/F, 58,064.71

07.04.2015 Sector-150, Noida M/s Crest Promoters Private Limited, SC-02/G, 60,000.54

07.04.2015 Sector-150, Noida M/s Three C Buildcon Private Limited, SC-02/ 32,519.22

07.04.2015 E, Sector-150, Noida M/s Three C Infra Square Private Limited, SC

40186.45

07.04.2015 02/D, Sector-150, Noida M/s Lotus Greens Constructions Pvt. Ltd. SC- 7,600.00

11.05.2015 01/A, Sector-150, Noida M/s Lotus Greens Constructions Pvt. Ltd.-SC- 72,000.00

20.11.2015 01/H and I, Sector-150, Noida 13 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

10. M/s Lotus Greens Constructions Pvt. Ltd.-SC- 72,000.00

20.11.2015 01/J and J, Sector-150, Noida

11. Area not registered yet 56,000.00 Not Applicable Total Area 11,98,370.92

14. On 01.3.2016, NOIDA allotted 1,53,790 sqm of extra land to the petitioners.

15. It is claimed by the petitioners that the possession of contiguous land has not been given to them till date. Khasra Nos. 86, 471, 94, 95, 109, 110, 171, 172, 181, 182, 187, 192, 200, 201, 208, 209, 211, 212, 218, 219, 234, 233 in Village Momnathal fall under the Chak Marg, Drain, Govt. Land and Main Drain, which were still not acquired by Noida Authority spreading in between the 10,07,000.00 sqm land parcel.

16. On 6.9.2017 Noida issued a letter to the allottee for payment of additional compensation for the farmers whose land has been acquired.

17. Inspite of rescheduling of the time frame the allottee failed to meet the first Mile stone. So a notice was issued by the Noida on 4.2.2020 but nothing happened.

18. The petitioner company claims that there were some problem in actual physical possession of the entire land, hence, the petitioner applied for benefit of zero period for an area 8,07,600 sqm from the date of execution of lease deed till 30.06.2015. The petitioner again moved an application dated 18.12.2015/ 28.12.2015 seeking benefit of zero period for an area 10,07,600 sqm. Noida Authority on 12.09.2016 granted benefit of zero period for an area measuring 9,94,218 sqm. In this letter, it was mentioned that benefit of zero period will not be extended further. The petitioner company availed the benefit of this letter dated 12.09.2016 and did not challenge the same. 14 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

19. The lead member of the Consortium filed a consolidated map for the development of the sports city project, which was approved.

20. On the request of the allottees (members of the consortium) their allotted land was subdivided into various companies, which they claimed, were 100% subsidiary of the allottee companies.

21. Subsequently, the allottee subsidiary Companies further made request to the Noida authority to further subdivide their plots in the name of companies, which were 100% subsidiaries of the allottee companies. By this sub-division, the original seven companies by now had become 24 companies.

22. The possession of 8,07,600 sqm. of land was handed over on

26.12.2014. Though the Sports City Scheme-02 in Sector 150 was on an area of 12,00,000 sqm, but the Noida authority allotted further 1,13,375 sqm of land to the allottee. After the allotment of this additional land, the allottee filed a revised master layout for approval, which was sanctioned by the Noida authority on 17.1.2017 extending the timeline period of various milestones for completion of the project. The extended time line was as follows:- Mile stone Start date Completion date 15% development of recreational facilities in three years

1.10.2016

30.09.2019 100% development of recreational facilities in five years

1.10.2016

30.09.2021. 100% development of residential & Commercial in seven years

1.10.2016

30.09.2023.

23. An integrated map for development of Sports City-02 in Sector 150 was approved on 17.01.2017 (the validity of the plan was five years) wherein each Member of Consortium took upon themselves the 15 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. obligation of completing their part of residential/commercial and the sports facility in the Sports City. The approved map showing obligations of each company were as follows:- PLOT NO.SC-02, SECTOR-150, NOIDA (U.P.) Company S. No. PLOT NO. Plot company FAR To be developed company In Sqm In Sqm PROPOSED GROUND COVERAGE (SQM.) OPEN/ GREEN (IN SQ.M.) (Perc) % (Perc) % Residentia l (IN SQM) (A) Commer (IN SQM) (B) (Perc ) % Sports (IN SQM) (C) (Perc ) % Total (In Sqm) (E=A+B+ C) (Perc) %

9. M/s Lotus Greens Constructions Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A, SEC-150 M/s Land Kart Builders Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A1, SEC-150 M/s Build Wall Builders Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A2, SEC-150 M/s Wiztown Planners Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A3, SEC-150 M/s Gray Developers Pvt. Ltd. Wall SC-02/A4, SEC-150 Gray Brick M/s Developers Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A5, SEC-150 Brick Town M/s Developers Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A6, SEC-150 M/s Strongbiz Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A7, SEC-150 M/s Wishland Buildzone Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A8, SEC-150

10. M/s Wondrous Buildmart Pvt. Ltd.

11. M/s Escarpment Buildcraft Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A9, SEC-150 SC-02/A10, SEC-150

12. M/s Elate Realtors Pvt. Ltd.

13. M/s Allure Developers Pvt. Ltd.

14. M/s Samridhi Square Pvt. Ltd. Infra

15. M/s Samridhi Buildmart Pvt. Ltd.

16. M/s Crest Promoters Pvt. Ltd.

17. M/s Crest Promoters Pvt. Ltd.

18. M/s Brick Developers Pvt. Ltd. Rise

19. M/s Fest Developers Pvt. Ltd. Homes

20. M/s Three C Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

21. M/s Allure Developers Pvt. Ltd.

22. M/s Reverent Developers Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/B, SEC-150 SC-02/C, SEC-150 SC-02/D, SEC-150 SC-02/E, SEC-150 SC-02/F, SEC-150 SC-02/G, SEC-150 SC-02/HI, SEC-150 SC-02/JK, SEC-150 SC-02/L, SEC-150 SC-02/C1, SEC-150 SC-02/M, SEC-150

134441.00

166857.48

94108.70

70.00

25642.30

19.07

190.00

0.14

14500.00 10.79 40332.30

30.00

83970.00

195796.00

58779.00

70.00

24255.00

28.89

436.00

0.52

500.00

0.60

25191.00

30.00

653331.00

131643.92

45731.70

70.00

19157.30

29.32

180.00

0.28

262.00

0.40

19599.30

30..00

27185.00

31326.09

18700.05

68.79

0.00

0.00

2212.01

8.14

6272.94

23.08 8484.95

31.21

46846.00

115406.36

32792.20

70.00

0.00

0.00

185.73

0.40

13868.08 29.60 14053.80

30.00

8080.00

36428.53

3232.00

40.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

4848.00

60.00 4848.00

60.00

37915.00

105853.08

26540.50

70.00

11244.50

29.66

130.00

0.34

0.00

0.00

11374.50

30.00

50790.00

99818.81

35553.00

70.00

15057.00

29.65

180.00

0.35

0.00

0.00

15237.00

30.00

50560.00

110323.36

35392.00

70.00

14944.00

29.56

224.00

0.44

0.00

0.00

151.68.00

30.00

80857.00

138020.50

56599.90

70.00

23695.10

29.30

100.00

0.12

462.00

0.57

24257.10

30.00

108135.00

162309.32

78118.50

72.24

29826.50

27.58

190.00

0.18

0.00

0.00

30016.50

27.76

100000.00

200000.00

70000.00

70.00

29500.00

29.50

500.00

0.50

0.00

0.00

30000.00

30.00

60000.00

120000.00

42000.00

70.00

17400.00

29.00

300.00

0.50

300.00

0.00

18000.00

30.00

40186.45

80372.90

28130.52

70.00

11855.00

29.50

200.93

0.50

0.00

0.00

12055.94

30.00

32519.22

65038.44

22763.45

70.00

9593.17

29.50

162.60

0.50

0.00

0.00

9755.77

30.00

58064.71

116129.42

40645.30

70.00

17129.09

29.50

290.32

0.50

0.00

0.00

17419.41

30.00

60000.54

120001.08

42000.38

70.00

17700.16

29.50

300.00

0.50

0.00

0.00

18000.16

30.00

72000.00

144000.00

50400.00

70.00

21240.00

29.50

360.00

0.50

0.00

0.00

21600.00

30.00

72000.00

195219.39

50400.00

70.00

21420.00

29.75

180.00

0.25

0.00

0.00

21600.00

30.00

42658.00

85316.00

29860.60

70.00

12584.11

29.50

213.29

0.50

0.00

0.00

12797.40

30.00

22769.00

45538.00

15938.30

70.00

6716.86

29.50

113.85

0.50

0.00

0.00

6830.70

30.00

37231.00

117679.14

26391.15

70.88

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

10839.85 29.12 10839.85

29.12

23. M/s Vella Stone SC-02/N,

20863.00

41726.00

14604.10

70.00

6258.90

30.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

6258.90

30.00 16 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. SEC-150

24. M/s Vicetech Developers Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/P, SEC-150

17344.00

34688.00

12140.80

70.00

5203.20

30.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

5203.20

30.00 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

1329745.92

2659491.84

930822.14 70.00

340422.18 25.60

6648.73

0.50

51852.87 3.90

398923.78 30.00 PERMISSIBLE DEVELOPMENT

1329745.92

2659491.84

930822.14 70.00

392275.05 29.50

6648.73

0.50

398923.78 30.00

24. The petitioner claimed that NOIDA Authority had not executed lease deed in respect of sub-divided plots and for this reason, they were unable to commence construction and development work on their respective plots.

25. The petitioner again sought benefit of extension of zero period on the ground of encroachment by farmers and inability of NOIDA Authority to provide encumbrance free land. This request was declined by NOIDA Authority on 25.02.2020.

26. Lead Member of the Consortium (petitioner company) as well as the Relevant Members did not develop the Sports City as well as residential apartments within time as prescribed in the scheme. Thereafter, the petitioner company (Lead Member of the Consortium) moved an application on 05.12.2022 for approval of the revised Master Plan. However, in this revised plan, area of Golf Course was unilaterally reduced. CAG REPORT

27. It transpires that there was some bungling/scam in formulating the scheme of the Sports City and its allotment and development. An audit was carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India 2, who tabled the report in September, 2020, which shows that there was a huge scam, which costed Noida Authority and the State Government a loss of 2 CAG 17 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. almost 9,000/- crore ₹9,000/- crore . The relevant portion of report submitted by CAG is quoted hereinbelow:- सी०ए०जी० द्वारा उठाई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ गई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ मुख्य आपत्तियाँआपत्ति(cid:20)य आपत्तियाँाँ

11. स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटी में भूखण्डों की भूखण्डों की की pricing 9000 करोड का नुकसान हुआ। त्रुटिटपूर्ण है(cid:25) है, सिजसके कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग कारर्ण है प्राधि-करर्ण है को लगभग रू सिजसके कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग फलस्वरूप स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर का क्षे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग त्रफल 36 ब्रोशर में भूखण्डों की मात्र आवासीय आपत्तियाँ तथा व्य आपत्तियाँवसाधिय आपत्तियाँक प्रय आपत्तियाँोजन हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु अंटिकत क्षे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग त्रफल को उप टिवभासिजत टिकय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग जाने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग का प्राटिव-ान था, ले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिकन स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु अंटिकत क्षे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग त्रफल को भी उप-टिवभासिजत कर टिAय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा, भागों की में भूखण्डों की बांटा टिAय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा है। टे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग क्नीकल क्वालीटिफके कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग शन, टन(cid:25) ब्रोशर में भूखण्डों की उल्ले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग त्तिखत शतE के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अनुसार प्राप्त विड्स की स्क्रीनिंग टिवड्स की स्क्रीनिंनग- ओवर ने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टवथ(cid:25) आटिA को नजर अन्Aाज करते कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हुए स्पोट(cid:25) सिसटीज के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग भूखण्डों की का आवंटन टिकय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा। लीड मे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग म्बर सिजसका कनसोर्शिशय आपत्तियाँम में भूखण्डों की टिहस्सा सबसे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अधि-क था, गय आपत्तियाँा। इस प्रकार आवंटन नही थे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग । टिव(cid:20) टिवभाग द्वारा उप टिवभासिजत भूखण्डों की को अलग आवंटी मानते कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हुए उसका अलग पे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग में भूखण्डों की ट प्लान जारी टिकय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा। माकQ इवे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग न्र्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स आय आपत्तियाँोसिजत करने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग त्तिलए स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिफल्ड में भूखण्डों की specialized agency स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज का टिनय आपत्तियाँोजन टिकय आपत्तियाँा जाना था, गई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ। ब्रोशर में भूखण्डों की स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) गधितटिवधि-य आपत्तियाँों की हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु specification उप टिवभासिजत भूखण्डों की को Aूसरी Entity त्तिलए गये, को लगभग रू० 295.70 को स्थानान्तरिरत करने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग पूव(cid:25) ट्रान्सफर चाज(cid:25) नहीं किये। सिजसके कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग कारर्ण है स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटी भूखण्ड सं० एस०सी०-01, सैक्टर-78/79 में भूखण्डों की प्राधि-करर्ण है ले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिकन specialized agencies टिन-ा(cid:25)रिरत नहीं किये। टिकय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग । ऐसे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिवकासकता(cid:25)ओ को कर टिAय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा, वह कन्सोर्शिशय आपत्तियाँम में भूखण्डों की बाहर हो जो टिव(cid:20)ीय आपत्तियाँ दृटिO सो योग्ययो योग्यग्य की मAA से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग की मAA नही ली करोड का नुकसान हुआ है। इस प्रकार स्पोट(cid:25) सिसटी भूखण्ड सं० एस०सी००-02, सैक्टर-150 में भूखण्डों की प्राधि-करर्ण है को लगभग

166.50 करोड का नुकसान हुआ है। खे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग लकूA सुटिव-ाओंके कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिवकसिसत होने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग पूव(cid:25) ही 02 कर टिAय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग गय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग । परिरय आपत्तियाँोजनाओंमें भूखण्डों की अधि-भोग प्रमार्ण है पत्र जारी खे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग लकूA सुटिव-ाओंका टिवकास होने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग पूव(cid:25) ही इन सुटिव-ाओं हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु अनुमन्य आपत्तियाँ एफ०ए०आर० को ग्रुप हाउसिंसग सोसाइटीज में भूखण्डों की ट्रांसफर कर टिAय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा। स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज का टिवकास ग्रुप हाउसिंसग य आपत्तियाँोजनाओं की तरह टिकय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा है, सिजसमें भूखण्डों की उप टिवभासिजत भूखण्डों की के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग मध्य आपत्तियाँ खे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ल सुटिव-ाएं प्रस्ताटिवत की गय आपत्तियाँी है। खे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ल सुटिव-ाओं को वरीय आपत्तियाँता प्रAान नही की गई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ है। लीजरे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग न्ट की कम रिरकवरी की गय आपत्तियाँी, सिजससे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग प्राधि-करर्ण है को रू ०64.31 करोड की हाटिन हुई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ।

28. The report given by the CAG was shocking and revealed the scam, it mentions as to how the Noida Authority and the State Government has suffered a loss amounting to Rs.9,000/- crore, as Noida Authority has 18 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. done wrong pricing of the land marked for Sports City. As per the brochure only residential and commercial plots could have been divided but the Noida Authority sub-divided the entire plots, which were earmarked for Sports City as well. Bids of the allottee were not screened and the turnover/qualification of the candidates were also not considered before allotting the plot. The Lead Member having the highest share was ousted from the project completely and thereafter, the allotment was done to various other companies, which individually could not have qualified in the financial bid evaluation. By adopting such dubious methodology, the Noida Authority had allotted the plots to those, who were not even entitled to apply individually. The Noida Authority did not even bother to collect the instalment dues and no effort was ever made by them giving an undue and illegal advantage to the allottees. The finance department has issued a fresh payment plan considering each allottee company as a fresh allottee. The transfer charges for second and third transfer were not even collected. In some cases, occupancy certificate has been issued though sports facilities were not developed. The lease rent was also not recovered.

29. After the report of CAG, the matter was eventually referred to the Public Accounts Committee3, where the proceedings are still going on. BOARD MEETING OF NOIDA AUTHORITY

30. As a knee jerk reaction to the CAG Audit, NOIDA had its Board meeting on 18.01.2021 (201st Board Meeting) in which it was resolved that in order to complete the sports facilities in the Sports City, a Committee should be formed, which would look into the situation and put 3 PAC 19 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. forth a report in the next Board meeting, and stayed any further steps to be taken in the Sports City including revalidation of the maps.

31. The next Board’s meeting was held on 25.06.2021, wherein it was resolved as under:- आटिA की अनुमधित प्रAान की जाय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग । उनसे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग समझौता कर अ-ूरे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग रोड ने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टवक(cid:25) को पूर्ण है(cid:25) कराय आपत्तियाँा य आपत्तियाँह भी उल्ले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग खनीय आपत्तियाँ है टिक प्राधि-करर्ण है के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग पत्र सं० नौएड से अधिक की धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।ा/ सी०ए०जी० की रिरपोट(cid:25) में भूखण्डों की परिरलधिक्षत आपत्ति(cid:20)य आपत्तियाँों की के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग क्रम में भूखण्डों की स्पोट(cid:25) सिसटी परिरय आपत्तियाँोजना को भवन मानधिचत्र स्वीकृधित संशोधि-त मानधिचत्र स्वीकृधित समय आपत्तियाँवृधिZ रिरवे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग त्तिलडे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग शनऑफ टिबल्डिंल्डग नौएडा क्षे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग त्र में भूखण्डों की स्थिस्थत स्पोट(cid:25) सिसटी परिरय आपत्तियाँोजनाओं में भूखण्डों की अन्तराO्रीय आपत्तियाँ स्तर की खे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग लकूA कुछ लैण्ड पार्सल का कब्जा नही दिया गया है। कब्जा दिलवाया जाये। लैण्ड पास(cid:25)ल का कब्जा नही टिAय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा है। कब्जा टिAलवाय आपत्तियाँाजाय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग । जहां टिकसानों की के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग साथ टिववाA है, करो योग्यड से अधिक की धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।सेअधि(cid:21)ककी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।(cid:21)नराधि(cid:24)व्ययकी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।जाचुकी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।है। इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर पररू०100 उनके कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग द्वारा स्पोस्र्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटी के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग प्लॉट को Further sub-divide न ही टिकय आपत्तियाँा “i. ii. जाय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग गा। iii. प्लान, iv. v. जाय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग । vi. स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सुटिव-ाएं टिवकसिसत टिकय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग जाने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु समय आपत्तियाँसारर्ण हैी Aी गय आपत्तियाँी। 13. सटिमधित द्वारा चारों की स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग स्थल के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग फोटोग्राफ्स भी प्राप्त विड्स की स्क्रीनिंग टिकय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग गय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग । चारों की स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग फोटोग्राफ्स रिरपोट(cid:25) के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग साथ संलग्न है। फोटोग्राफ्स का अवलोकन करने से है। फोटोग्राफ्स का अवलोकन करने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग स्पO है टिक स्थल पर ग्रुप हाउसिंसग के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टॉवर टिवद्यमान है त्तिलके कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग न अन्तरा(cid:25)O्रीय आपत्तियाँ स्तर की खे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ल सुटिव-ाएँ नगन्य आपत्तियाँ है। स्पो योग्यट !सिसटी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।/2020/940, टिAनांक 14. 16.06.2021 द्वारा अपर मुख्य आपत्तियाँ सधिचव अवस्थापना एंव औद्योटिगक टिवकास टिवभाग, उ०प्र० शासन को नोएडा में भूखण्डों की स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज परिरय आपत्तियाँोजना के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिवकास एंव टिक्रय आपत्तियाँान्वय आपत्तियाँन में भूखण्डों की आ रही बा-ाओंका उल्ले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ख करते कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हुए शासन से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग उधिचत माग(cid:25)- Aश(cid:25)न प्रAान टिकय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग जाने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग का अनुरो- टिकय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा है। इस पत्र में भूखण्डों की टिनम्न टिबन्Aुओंपर टिनAeश मांगे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग गय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हैः- a. आगे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग कैसे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग बढाय आपत्तियाँा जाय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग । b. सुटिव-ाओंका टिवकास टिकस प्रकार टिकय आपत्तियाँा जाय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग । c. अधि(cid:21)भो योग्यग प्रमाण प रमाण d. को इस य आपत्तियाँोजना के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अन्तग(cid:25)त भूटिम सबलीज पर Aे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग Aी गय आपत्तियाँी है तथा स्थल पर इन टिवकासकता(cid:25)ओंद्वारा टिवकास एंव टिनमा(cid:25)र्ण है काय आपत्तियाँ(cid:25) प्रारम्भ कर टिAय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग गय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग है। इन टिवकासकता(cid:25)ओं द्वारा तृतीय आपत्तियाँ पक्ष के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अधि-कारी भी सृसिजत टिकय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग जा चुके कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग है एंव फ्लैट क्रे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ताओं से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग -नराशि वसूल कर ली गयी है। स्पोर्ट्सश वसूल कर ली गय आपत्तियाँी है। स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) फे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग त्तिलटीज के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिवकास के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अभाव में भूखण्डों की अधि-भोग प्रमार्ण है पत्र जारी न होने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग की स्थिस्थधित में भूखण्डों की व भूखण्डों की पर अत्य आपत्तियाँधि-क देय#ाओं के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग कारर्ण है क्रे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ताओं के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग पक्ष में भूखण्डों की उप पट्टा प्रले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ख टिनष्पाAन की काय आपत्तियाँ(cid:25)वाही नही हो पा रही है। स्थल टिनरीक्षर्ण है सी०ए०जी० की आपत्ति(cid:20) तथा स्पोट(cid:25) सिसटी से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग सम्बस्थिन्-त अशि वसूल कर ली गयी है। स्पोर्ट्सभले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग खों की का अवलोकन करने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग उपरांत सटिमधित का य आपत्तियाँह मंतव्य आपत्तियाँ है टिक टिनम्न कारर्ण हैों की से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग नौएडा में भूखण्डों की टिवकसिसत हुई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग सम्बन्- में भूखण्डों की शासन स्तर से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिAशा- टिनAeश प्राप्त विड्स की स्क्रीनिंग टिकय आपत्तियाँा जाना उधिचत होगाः- 1. सी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।.ए.जी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।. द्वारा नौएडा में भूखण्डों की टिवकसिसत हुई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग संबं- में भूखण्डों की गम्भीर आपत्ति(cid:20)य आपत्तियाँों की जो य आपत्तियाँोजना की धिडजाई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँन, टिबडिंडग, प्राई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँसिंसग, मानधिचत्र स्वीकृधित, टिक्रय आपत्तियाँान्वय आपत्तियाँन, उठाई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ गय आपत्तियाँी है, आटिA के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग संबं- में भूखण्डों की है। सी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।.ए. जी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।. द्वारा अपनी प्रारस्थिम्भक रिरपोट(cid:25) शासन को प्रे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिoत कर Aी गय आपत्तियाँी है। 2. टिन-ा(cid:25)रिरत समय आपत्तियाँ समाप्त विड्स की स्क्रीनिंग हो चुका है, टिवकास नगण्य/बहु# 3. का ही सबधिडवीजन टिकय आपत्तियाँा जाय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ग प्रमाण ा, भूटिम का सबधिडवीजन भी कर टिAय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा है। सभी स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज में भूखण्डों की ब्रोशर की शतE में भूखण्डों की खे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग लकूA सुटिव-ाएं टिवकसिसत टिकय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग जाने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु ले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिकन चारों की स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज में भूखण्डों की खे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग लकूA सुटिव-ाओं का ब्रोशर में भूखण्डों की य आपत्तियाँह उल्ले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग त्तिखत था टिक के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग वलआवासीय आपत्तियाँ एंव व्य आपत्तियाँवसाधिय आपत्तियाँक प्रय आपत्तियाँोजन हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तुआरधिक्षत भूटिम ले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिकन तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज में भूखण्डों की गोल्फ कोस(cid:25) हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु प्रस्ताटिवत स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) फे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग त्तिलटीज के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिवकास के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अभाव में भूखण्डों की भूखण्डों की के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग मानधिचत्र स्वी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।कृधि#/ पुन!वैधि(cid:21)करण/ पत्र की काय आपत्तियाँ(cid:25)वाही टिकस प्रकार की जाय आपत्तियाँें भूखण्डों की । छ लैण्ड पार्सल का कब्जा नही दिया गया है। कब्जा दिलवाया जाये।ोटे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग स्पोट(cid:25) सिसटी के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिवकासकता(cid:25)ओं द्वारा कई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ छ लैण्ड पार्सल का कब्जा नही दिया गया है। कब्जा दिलवाया जाये।ोटे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग - धिवकासक#ा!ओं कम हुआ है। 20 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

4. सैक्टर-152 स्थिस्थत स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटी के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अधितरिरक्त अन्य तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटीज का विकास ग्रुप अन्य आपत्तियाँ तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज का टिवकास ग्रुप हाउसिंसग परिरय आपत्तियाँोजनाओं की भांधित हुआ है। ग्रुप हाउसिंसग य आपत्तियाँोजनाओं में भूखण्डों की भी स्वीनिंमग पूल, बैंडटिमन्टन कोट(cid:25), टे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिनस कोट(cid:25) आटिA का प्राटिव-ान टिकय आपत्तियाँा जाता है। इन तीनों की स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज में भूखण्डों की भी उक्त अन्य तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटीज का विकास ग्रुप श्रे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग र्ण हैी की कई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ सुटिव-ाएं संबंधि-त सबसिसधिडएरी द्वारा अपनी य आपत्तियाँोजनाओं में भूखण्डों की की गय आपत्तियाँी है, सिजनका उपय आपत्तियाँोग के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग वल उस य आपत्तियाँोजना में भूखण्डों की रहने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग वाले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिनवासिसय आपत्तियाँों की द्वारा ही टिकय आपत्तियाँा जा सकता है, अन्य आपत्तियाँ स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज अथवा नोएडा में भूखण्डों की रहने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग वाले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग आम टिनवासिसय आपत्तियाँों की द्वारा इन सुटिव-ाओं को उपय आपत्तियाँोग प्रैस्थिक्टकली नही टिकय आपत्तियाँा जा सके कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग गा, अपनी य आपत्तियाँोजनाओं में भूखण्डों की बाउण्ड्री वॉल का टिनमा(cid:25)र्ण है कर त्तिलय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा है। 5. 6. कारर्ण है खे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ल सुटिव-ाएें भूखण्डों की टिवकसिसत टिकय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग जाने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग में भूखण्डों की कटिठनाई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ हो रही है। 7. सिसटी के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग स्थान पर हाउसिंसग परिरय आपत्तियाँोजनओंकी भांधित है। चोरों की स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिवकासकता(cid:25)ओंपर लगभग रू- 4000 ब्रोशर में भूखण्डों की Aी गय आपत्तियाँी शतE के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिवपरीत लीड में भूखण्डों की म्बर द्वारा कन्सोर्शिशय आपत्तियाँम से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग बाहर हो जाने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज का टिवकास इन्टीग्रे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ड रूप से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग नही हुआ है एंव उनका स्वरूप स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) क्य आपत्तियाँोटिक टिबल्डरों की द्वारा अपनी- करोड़ की देनदारी है। की Aे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग नAारी है। सटिमधित की उक्त अन्य तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटीज का विकास ग्रुप रिरपोट(cid:25) प्राधि-करर्ण है बोड(cid:25) के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग समक्ष अवलोकनाथ(cid:25) एंव टिAशा टिनAeश सिजस पर प्राधि-करर्ण है बोड(cid:25) द्वारा टिनम्नवत टिनर्ण है(cid:25)य आपत्तियाँ प्रAान टिकय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग जाने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु प्रस्तुत की गय आपत्तियाँी थी, त्तिलय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँाः- संचालक मण्डल द्वारा सटिमधित की आख्य आपत्तियाँा को संज्ञान में भूखण्डों की ले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ते कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हुए सुटिवचारिरत प्रस्ताव माग(cid:25)Aश(cid:25)न प्राटिप्त विड्स की स्क्रीनिंग हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु शासन को प्रे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिoत करने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग का टिनर्ण है(cid:25)य आपत्तियाँ त्तिलय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा। अतः प्राधि-करर्ण है बोड(cid:25) द्वारा त्तिलय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग गय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग उपरोक्त अन्य तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटीज का विकास ग्रुप टिनर्ण है(cid:25)य आपत्तियाँ एंव नौएडा प्राधि-करर्ण है के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग पूव(cid:25) क्रम में भूखण्डों की शासन स्तर से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग स्पोटu(cid:25) सिसटीज के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग सम्बन्- में भूखण्डों की टिAशा- प्रे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिoत पत्र टिAनांक 16.06.2021 के टिनAeश प्रAान करने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग का कO करें भूखण्डों की । प्राधि-करर्ण है बोड(cid:25) के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग समक्ष स्पोट(cid:25) सिसटीज के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग सम्बन्- में भूखण्डों की रखे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग गय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग प्रस्ताव एंवकाय!वृ# की प्रधित संलग्न है। फोटोग्राफ्स का अवलोकन करने से कर प्रे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिoत की जा रही है। संलग्न है। फोटोग्राफ्स का अवलोकन करने सेक य आपत्तियाँथोपरिर ”।

32. After the CAG report, NOIDA froze all the activities in the Sports City and referred the matter to the State Government for direction and guidance as to what has to be done. Looking into the gravity of the situation a Public Accounts Committee4 comprising of members of Legislative Assembly was constituted to look into the issue. PRAYERS MADE IN THE LEADING WRIT PETITION NO.15604 OF 2021

33. Since then, nothing had happened, so the Lead Member on behalf of the Consortium (petitioner company) has filed the instant writ petition i.e .Writ C No.15604 of 2021 (M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) seeking following reliefs:- “I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDMUS directing the respondents to extend the benefit of zero period to the Petitioner not only up to the admitted date of 17.08.2017 but till the actual peaceful vacant 4 PAC 21 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. physical possession of the land in question being Plot no. Sport City SC-02 in Sector 150, NOIDA, is handed over to the Petitioner. II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature MANDMUS directing the respondents not to demand/realize the installment and interest on the lease premium until the actual peaceful vacant physical possession of the land in question being Plot no. Sport City -2 in Sector 150, NOIDA, is handed over to the Petitioner. III. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature MANDMUS directing the respondents not to demand/charge lease rent upto the admitted date of 17.08.2017 but till the actual peaceful vacant physical possession of the land in question being Plot no. Sport City -2 in Sector 150, NOIDA, is handed over to the Petitioner. IV. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature MANDMUS directing the respondents to grant extension of construction timeline ought to be calculated from the date when the actual peaceful vacant physical possession of the land in question being Plot no. Sport City -2 in Sector 150, NOIDA, is handed over to the Petitioner. V. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature MANDMUS directing the respondents to provide to the Petitioner, a restructuring of the repayment schedule so that the amount is paid to Noida Authority in terms of order dt. 10.06.2020 and 10.07.2020 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 940/2017 in the Amrapali Batch Matters as against the allotment of the land in question to the Petitioner being Plot no. Sports City-2 in Sector-150, NOIDA. VI. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the Demand/intimation letter dt. 15.03.2021 passed by Noida Authority being incorrect and further preventing the Respondent Authorities from taking any coercive action against the Petitioner with respect to the legal right of the Petitioner over the land in question being Plot no. Sport City-SC-02 in Sector 150, NOIDA. VII. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature MANDAMUS, directing the respondents to pay damages and compensation to the additional premium as extra compensation awarded to the Farmers have been levied upon the Petitioner and included in the total cost of the allotment of the land in question to the Petitioner. VIII. To issue any other order of direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IX. To award the cost of the petition to this Petitioner. X. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature MANDAMUS directing the respondents to provide to the Petitioner, a restructuring of the repayment schedule as against the allotment of the land in question to the Petitioner being Plot no. Sport City-2 in Sector 150, NOIDA. XI. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature MANDAMUS, directing the Respondent No.2 to execute lease deeds of the balance land admeasuring 1,23,854 sq meter allotted to the various allottees forming part of the Sports City Plot in question. XII. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the decision of Board of the Respondent No. 2 taken in 201st Board Meeting 22 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. dated 18-01-2021 whereby all the approvals, sanctions, permissions and other decisions in respect of Sports City Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Gautam Buddh Nagar, U.P have been put on hold/freeze; XIII. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature MANDAMUS, directing the Respondent No.2 to approve the building plans, revision in building plans, revalidation of building plans and such other approvals/sanctions/clarifications related to permission to mortgage, change in constitution of the Allottees, transfer approvals etc. as may be required to execute the Sports City Project efficiently. XIV. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the demand letter dated 06-09-2017 along with letter dated 31-07- 2020 issued by Respondent no.2 demanding INR 392.88/- (Rupees Three Hundred Crores and Eighty Eight Crores only) by way of Pratikar towards payment of additional farmers compensation in respect of Subject Plot being SC-02-, Sports City, Sector 150, Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar, U.P; XV. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Respondent no. 2 to not take any coercive steps /actions pursuant to the impugned demand notice dated 06-09-2017 issued by Respondent no.2. XVI. To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Respondent no. 2 to grant benefit of zero-period in respect of plot no. 80-02/A forming part of Sports City Plot in question for the period commencing from date of allotment of the said plot till the date on which; (i) the encroachment from the said plot no, SC-02/A is removed and vacant physical and peaceful possession of the encroachment portion is handed over by Respondent no.2 to the petitioner and (ii) lease deed in respect of the Unleased Portion of the said plot SC-02/A is executed by Respondent no.2 in Favour of the Petitioner. XVII. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Respondent no. 2 to grant benefit of zero-period to M/s Build Wall Builders Private Limited in respect of plot no. SC-02/A2 for the period commencing from 01-10-2016 till the date on which the encroachment from the said plot no. SC-02/A2 is removed and vacant physical and peaceful possession of the encroachment portion is handed over by Respondent no.2. XVIII. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent. no. 2 to grant benefit of zero-period to Gray Wall Brick Town, Villa Stone and Vicetech the benefit of zero period in respect of plots nos, namely SC-02/A4, SC-02/A6, SC-02/N and SC-02/P forming part of Sports City Plot in question for the period commencing from 01-10-2016 till the date on which the lease deed in respect of plot no. SC-02/P is executed by respondent no. 2 in favour of Vicetech. XIX. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Respondent no. 2 to grant benefit of zero-period to M/s Escarpment Buildcraft Private Limited in respect of plot no. SC-02/A10, forming part of Sports City Plot in question for the period commencing from 01-10-2016 till the date on which the lease deed in respect of the Unleased Portion of Plot No. SC- 02A/A10 is executed by Respondent no. 2. XX. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Respondent no. 2 to grant benefit of zero-period to Elate Realtors Private 23 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Limited in respect of plot no. SC-02/B for the period commencing from 01-10- 2016 till the date on which the encroachment from the said plot no. SC-02/B is removed and vacant physical and peaceful possession of the encroachment portion is handed over by Respondent no.2. PRAYERS MADE IN THE CONNECTED WRIT PETITIONS (1) In Writ-C 30347 of 2023 (M/s Reverent Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others:- “(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to execute and register lease deed in respect of the Subject Plot being SC-02/M, admeasuring 37,231 sq. meters forming part of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot No. SC-02, Sector-150, Noida, Gautam Budha Nagar, U.P. and more particularly shown and Approved Layout Plan of Sports City Plot annexed demarcated in Lotus Greens hereto as Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition. (ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus Respondent No. 1 to directing the take appropriate decision on the matter pertaining to the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot by removing the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City arising out of the impugned decision of Respondent No.3 in its 2015t Board Meeting dated 18-01-2021. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing/setting aside decision of the Respondent No. 3 to stop/put on hold sanction of building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City Plot Namely Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P, taken in the 201st Board Meeting of Respondent No. 3 on 18-01-2021 (Annexure No. 3 to this writ Petition). (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to allow construction and development of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot in accordance with Approved Layout Plan dated 17-01-2017 (Annexure No. 2 to this Writ Petition) OR in the alternative a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 3 to approve sanction the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent No.4 on 05-12-2022 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) and also to provide such other approvals/ sanctions/ permissions from time to time as may be required to enable the Petitioner to commence construction in the Subject Plot in accordance and the Scheme Brochure for the construction and development of the sports city project in the Subject Plot. (v) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to (i) grant zero period with regard to the payment of lease premium and annual lease rent in respect of the Subject Plot (ii) grant extension of time for completion of project in the Subject Plot without payment of any charges, for the period commencing from 01-03-2016 up to the date on which Respondent No. 3 executes lease deed in respect of the Subject Plot in favour 24 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. of the Petitioner and further for the period commencing from 18-01-2021 i.e. date on which the Board of the Respondent No. 3 has suspended the approval/ sanction/revision of building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot till the date on which the Respondent No. 3 removes the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City and permits development of sports city project in accordance with Approved Lay Out Plan dated 17-01-2017 OR approves the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent No.4, whichever is later. (vi) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not issue any demand note or any default notices till the time Respondent No. 3 executes lease deed in respect of the Subject Plot in favour of the Petitioner and further up to the date on which ban sanction of building plans in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot is lifted OR Revised Lay Out Plan is approved, whichever is later. (vii) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.” (2) In Writ-C No. 33174 of 2023 (M/s Wish Land Buildzone Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others):- Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari “(i) quashing/setting aside Impugned Demand Notice dated 28-03- 2023 (Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition) purporting to be for payment of alleged outstanding dues towards installments of lease premium amounting to Rs. 142,26,78,663/- and towards annual lease rent amounting to Rs. 21,08,14,796/- in aggregate Rs. 163,34,93,7459/- in respect of plot no. SC-02/A-8, admeasuring 50,560 sq. meters located in sports city Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not take any coercive steps/actions pursuant to Demand Notice dated 28-03-2023; (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to take appropriate decision on the matter pertaining to the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot by removing the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City arising out of the impugned decision of Respondent No.3 in its 201st Board Meeting dated 18-01-2021. (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing/setting aside decision of the Respondent No. 3 to stop/put on hold sanction of building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City Plot Namely Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P, taken in the 201st Board Meeting of Respondent No. 3 on 18-01-2021 (Annexure No. 3 to this writ petition). (v) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 to allow construction and development of the Lotus Greens 25 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Sports City Plot in accordance with Approved Layout Plan dated 17-01-2017 (Annexure No. 5 to this Writ Petition) OR in the alternative a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 3 to approve sanction the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5 on 05-12-2022 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) and also to provide such other approvals/ sanctions/ permissions from time to time as may be required to enable the Petitioner to commence construction in the Subject Plot in accordance with Sub- Lease Deed and the Scheme Brochure for the construction and development of the sports city project in the Subject Plot. (vi) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to (i) grant zero period with regard to the payment of lease premium and annual lease rent in respect of the Subject Plot (ii) grant extension of time without payment of any extra charges for completion of project in the Subject Plot, for the period commencing from 25-03-2020 up to 31-12-2020 on account of outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic and thereafter for the period commencing from 18-01-2021 i.e. date on which the Board of the Respondent No. suspended the 3 has approval/sanction/revision of building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot till the date on which the Respondent No. 3 removes the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City and permits development of sports city project in accordance with Approved Lay Out Plan dated 17-01-2017 OR approves the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5, whichever is later; (vii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not issue any demand note or any further or subsequent default notices up to the date on which ban sanction of building plans in respect of the Subject Sports City Plot is lifted or Revised Lay Out Plan is approved is, whichever is later; (viii) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.” (3) In Writ-C No. 33182 of 2023 (M/S Escarpment Buildcraft Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others):- “(i). Issue, a writ, order and/or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/ setting aside aside Impugned Demand Notice dated 27-03- 2023 (Annexure No.-2 to this writ petition) purporting to be for payment of alleged outstanding dues towards installments of lease premium amounting to Rs. 269,78,46,360/- and towards annual lease rent amounting to 39,33,82,733/- in aggregate Rs. 309,12,29,093/- in respect of Subject Plot being plot SC-02/A10, located in sports city Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P; (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not take any coercive steps/actions pursuant to the Impugned Demand Notice dated 27-03-2023. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to clear the encroachment of Encroached Portion (as per Super- imposed Shazra Map i.e. Annexure -4 to this writ petition) from the 26 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Subject Plot and handover vacant, physical and peaceful possession thereof to the Petitioner; (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to execute and register lease deed in respect of the Unleased Portion admeasuring 13842 sq. meters forming part of the Subject Plot; (v). Issue a writ, order or nature of Mandamus Respondent No. 1 to direction in the directing the take appropriate decision on the matter pertaining to the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot by removing the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City arising out of the impugned decision of Respondent No.3 in its 201st Board Meeting dated 18-01-2021; (vi) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing/ setting aside decision of the Respondent No. 3 to stop/put on hold sanction of building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City Plot Namely Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P, taken in the 201st Board Meeting of Respondent No. 3 on 18-01-2021 (Annexure No. 3 to this writ Petition); (vii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to allow construction and development of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot in accordance with Approved Layout Plan dated 17-01-2017 (Annexure No. 5 to this Writ Petition) OR in the alternative a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 3 to approve sanction the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5 on 05-12- 2022 (Annexure No. P-6 to the writ petition) and also to provide such other approvals/ sanctions/ permissions from time to time as may be required to enable the Petitioner to commence construction in the Subject Plot in accordance with Lease Deed and the Scheme Brochure for the construction and development of the sports city project in the Subject Plot; (viii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to (i) grant zero period with regard to the payment of lease premium and annual lease rent in respect of the Subject Plot (ii) grant extension of time for completion of project in the Subject Plot, for the period commencing from 25-03-2020 up to 31-12-2020 on account of outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic and thereafter for the period commencing from 18-01-2021 i.e. date on which the Board of the Respondent No. 3 has suspended the approval/sanction/revision of building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot till the date on which the Respondent No. 3 removes the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City and permits development of sports city project in accordance with Approved Lay Out Plan dated 17-01-2017 OR approves the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5, whichever is later; (ix) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to (i) grant zero period with regard to the payment of lease premium, annual lease rent in respect of the Subject Plot and (ii) grant extension of time for completion of project in the Subject Plot, for the period commencing from 01-10-2016 up to the date on which Respondent No.3 (i) removes encroachment from Encroached Portion of the Subject Plot; and (ii) 27 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. executes lease deed in respect of the Unleased portion forming part of Subject Plot AND (iii) removes the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot and permits development of sports city project in accordance with Approved Lay Out Plan dated 17-01-2017 OR approves the Revised Lay Out Plan dated 05-12-2022, whichever is later; (x). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not issue any demand note or any further or subsequent default notices till the time the Subject Plot remains encroached OR up to the date on which ban sanction of building plans in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot is lifted OR Revised Lay Out Plan is approved, whichever is later; (xi) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.” (4) In Writ -C No. 33191 of 2023 ( M/s Build Wall Builders Private Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others):- “(i). Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside aside Impugned Demand Notice dated 28-03- 2023 (Annexure No.-2 to this writ petition) purporting to be for payment of alleged outstanding dues towards installments of premium amounting lease to Rs. 186,91,83,445/- and towards annual lease rent amounting to 28,29,17,744/- in aggregate Rs.215,21,01,189/- in respect of Subject Plot being plot SC-02/A-2, admeasuring 65,331.00 sq. meters located in sports city Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. (ii) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not take any coercive steps/actions pursuant to the Impugned Demand Notice dated 28-03-2023. (iii) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to clear the encroachment of Encroached Portion (as per Super- imposed Shazra Map i.e. Annexure no.4 to this writ petition) from the Subject Plot and handover vacant, physical and peaceful possession thereof to the Petitioner. (iv) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to take appropriate decision on the matter pertaining to the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot by removing the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City arising out of the impugned decision of Respondent No.3 in its 2015t Board Meeting dated 18-01-2021. (v). Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing/setting aside the decision of the Respondent No. 3 to stop/put on hold sanction of building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City Plot Namely Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P, taken in the 201st Board Meeting of Respondent No. 3 on 18-01-2021 (Annexure No.3 to this writ Petition). 28 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (vi) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to allow construction and development of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot in accordance with Approved Layout Plan dated 17-01-2017 (Annexure No.5 to this Writ Petition) OR in the alternative a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 3 to approve sanction the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5 on 05-12-2022 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) and also to provide such other approvals/ sanctions/ permissions from time to time as may be required to enable the Petitioner to commence construction in the Subject Plot in accordance with Lease Deed and the Scheme Brochure for the construction and development of the sports city project in the Subject Plot. (vii) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to (i) grant zero period with regard to the payment of lease premium and annual lease rent in respect of the Subject Plot (ii) grant extension of time for completion of project in the Subject Plot, for the period commencing from 25- 03-2020 up to 31-12-2020 on account of outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic and thereafter for the period commencing from 18-01-2021 i.e. date on which the Board of the Respondent No.3 has suspended the approval/sanction/revision of building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot till the date on which the Respondent No. 3 removes the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City and permits development of sports city project in accordance with Approved Lay Out Plan dated 17-01-2017 OR approves the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5, whichever is later. (viii) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to (i) grant zero period with regard to the payment of lease premium, annual lease rent in respect of the Subject Plot and (ii) grant extension of time for completion of project in the Subject Plot, for the period commencing from 01-10-2016 up to the date on which Respondent No.3 (i) removes encroachment from Encroached Portion of the Subject Plot; and (ii) removes the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot and permits development of sports city project in accordance with Approved Lay Out Plan dated 17-01- 2017 OR approves the Revised Lay Out Plan dated 05-12-2022, whichever is later. (ix) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not issue any demand note or any further or subsequent default notices till the time the Subject Plot remains encroached OR up to the date on which ban sanction of building plans in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot is lifted OR Revised Lay Out Plan is approved, whichever is later. (x) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice. (5) In Writ -C No. 33193 of 2023 (M/s Brick Town Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others):- 29 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside Impugned Demand Notice dated 27-03- 2023 (Annexure No.2 to this writ petition) purporting to be for payment of alleged outstanding dues towards installments of lease premium amounting to Rs. 99,46,82,787/- and towards annual lease rent amounting to 15,80,90,928/- in aggregate Rs. 115,27,73,715/- in respect of plot no. SC- 02/A-6, admeasuring 37,915 sq. meters located in sports city Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. (ii) Issue writ, order or nature of direction in the mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not take any coercive steps/actions pursuant to the Impugned Demand Notice dated 27-03-2023. (iii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 to take appropriate decision on the matter pertaining to the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot by removing the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City arising out of the impugned decision of Respondent No.3 in its 201st Board Meeting dated 18-01-2021. (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing and/or setting aside decision of the Respondent No. 3 to stop/put on hold sanction building plans and other approvals of in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City Plot Namely Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P, taken in the 201st Board Meeting of Respondent No. 3 on 18- 01-2021 (Annexure No.3 to this writ Petition). (v) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to allow construction and development of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot in accordance with Approved Layout Plan dated 17-01-2017 (Annexure No. 5 to this Writ Petition) OR in the alternative a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 3 to approve sanction the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5 on 05-12-2022 (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition) and also to provide such other approvals/ sanctions/ permissions from time to time as may be required to enable the Petitioner to commence construction in the Subject Plot in accordance with Lease Deed and the Scheme Brochure for the construction and development of the sports city project in the Subject Plot. (vi) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to (i) grant zero period with regard to the payment of lease premium and annual lease rent in respect of the Subject Plot (ii) grant extension of time for completion of project in the Subject Plot, for the period commencing from 25-03-2020 up to 31-12-2020 on account of outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic and thereafter for the period commencing from 18-01-2021 i.e. date on which the Board of the Respondent No. 3 has suspended the approval/sanction/revision of building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot till the date on which the Respondent No. 3 removes the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City and permits development of sports city project in accordance with Approved Lay Out Plan dated 17-01-2017 OR approves the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5, whichever is later. 30 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (vii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not issue any demand note or any further or subsequent default notices up to the date on which ban sanction of building plans in respect of the Subject Sports City Plot is lifted or Revised Lay Out Plan is approved is, whichever is later. (viii) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.” (6) In Writ -C No. 33212 of 2023 (M/s Gray Brick Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others):- “(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside Impugned Demand Notice dated 27-03- 2023 (Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition) purporting to be for payment of alleged outstanding dues towards installments of lease premium amounting to Rs. 23,10,13173/- and towards annual lease rent amounting to Rs. 3,3713,432/- in aggregate Rs. 26,47,26,605/ in respect of plot no. SC-02/A-5, admeasuring 8080 sq. meters located in sports city Plot No. SC- 02, Sector 150, Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P; (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not take any coercive steps/actions pursuant to the Impugned Demand Notice dated 27-03-2023; (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Respondent Mandamus No. 1 to directing the take appropriate decision on the matter pertaining to the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot by removing the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of Greens Lotus Sports City arising out of the impugned decision of Respondent No.3 in its 201st Board Meeting dated 18-01-2021; (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside decision of the Respondent No. 3 to stop/put on hold sanction of building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City Plot Namely Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P, taken in the 201st Board Meeting of Respondent No. 3 on 18-01-2021 (Annexure No. 3 to this writ petition); (v) Issue a writ, nature of order or direction in the Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to allow construction and development of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot in accordance with Approved Layout Plan dated 17-01-2017 (Annexure No. 5 to this Writ Petition) OR in the alternative a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 3 to approve sanction the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5 on 05-12-2022 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) and also to provide such other approvals/ sanctions/ permissions from time to time as may be required to enable the Petitioner to commence construction in the Subject Plot in accordance with Sub- Lease Deed and the Scheme Brochure for the construction and development of the sports city project in the Subject Plot; (vi) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to (i) grant zero period with regard to the payment of lease 31 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. premium and annual lease rent in respect of the Subject Plot (ii) grant extension of time without payment of any extra charges for completion of project in the Subject Plot, for the period commencing from 25-03-2020 up to 31-12-2020 on account of outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic and thereafter for the period commencing from 18-01-2021 i.e. date on which the Board of the Respondent No. 3 has suspended the approval/sanction/revision of building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot till the date on which the Respondent No. 3 removes the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City and permits development of sports city project in accordance with Approved Lay Out Plan dated 17-01-2017 OR approves the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5, whichever is later; (vii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not issue any demand note or any further or subsequent default notices up to the date. on which ban sanction of building plans in respect of the Subject Sports City Plot is lifted or Revised Lay Out Plan is approved is, whichever is later; (viii). Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.” (7) In Writ -C No. 35911 of 2023 (M/s Vicetech Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others):- “(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the No. 3 to execute and register lease deed in respect of the Subject Plot being SC- 02/P, admeasuring 17,344 sq. meters forming part of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot No. SC-02, Sector- 150, Noida, Gautam Budha Nagar, U.P. and more particularly shown and demarcated in Approved Layout Plan of Lotus Greens Sports City Plot annexed hereto as Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition. (ii) Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to take appropriate decision on the matter pertaining to the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot by removing the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City arising out of the impugned decision of Respondent No.3 in its 201st Board Meeting dated 18-01-2021. (iii) Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing/setting aside decision of the Respondent No. 3 to stop/put on hold sanction of building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City Plot Namely Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P, taken in the 201st Board Meeting of Respondent No. 3 on 18-01-2021 (Annexure No. 3 to this writ Petition). (iv) Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 to allow construction and development of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot in accordance with Approved Layout Plan dated 17-01-2017 (Annexure No. 2 to this Writ Petition) OR in the alternative a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 3 to approve sanction the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by 32 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. the Respondent No.4 on 05-12- 2022 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) and also to provide such other approvals/ sanctions/ permissions from time to time as may be required to enable the Petitioner to commence construction in the Subject Plot in accordance and the Scheme Brochure for the construction and development of the sports city project in the Subject Plot. (v) Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to (i) grant zero period with regard to the payment of lease premium and annual lease rent in respect of the Subject Plot (ii) grant extension of time for completion of project in the Subject Plot without payment of any charges, for the period commencing from 01-03-2016 up to the date on which Respondent No. 3 executes lease deed in respect of the Subject Plot in favour of the Petitioner and further for the period commencing from 18-01-2021 i.e. date on which the Board of the Respondent No. 3 has suspended the evision of approval/sanction/ building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot till the date on which the Respondent No. 3 removes the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City and permits development of sports city project in accordance with Approved Lay Out Plan dated 17-01-2017 OR approves the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent No.4, whichever is later. (vi) Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not issue any demand note or any default notices till the time Respondent No. 3 executes lease deed in respect of the Subject Plot in favour of the Petitioner and further up to the date on which ban sanction of building plans in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot is lifted OR Revised Lay Out Plan is approved, whichever is later. (vii) Issue other any writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.” ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

34. Initially the batch of writ petitions were argued by Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prateek Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners. They vehemently submitted that the actual physical possession of the entire leased area of Sports City SC-02 in Sector 150 was not handed over to the petitioners due to dispute between the farmers regarding the acquisition of the land. The additional compensation has also been added as premium and the same was paid by the petitioners. In spite of it the Noida Authority could not sort out the issue with the farmers inasmuch as when the premium was paid, there 33 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. was no reason as to why the NOIDA Authority could not hand over the land to the petitioners for the development of the sports city.

35. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, to buttress their arguments, made the following submissions.

36. Noida has a policy whereby any land of a project which is threatended by encumbrances would be covered by the zero period policy. The allottee of said land/project is exempted from paying the ground rent, interest and other levies for the entire period till such encumbrances or dispute exists. Since, in this case, on the plot in question there was dispute and encumbrances hence, the benefit of zero period policy should be extended to the petitioners.

37. It was further submitted that since contagious land was not handed over to the petitioners, hence they were not in a position to start the execution of the development of the sports city and that is why the petitioners had requested the respondents to grant benefit of the policy of zero period.

38. Noida Authority was well aware of these encumbrances and problems and that is why they granted the benefit of zero period for an area of 9,94,218 sqm. from the date of allotment to 30.09.2016 but in the order dated 12.09.2016 granting the benefit of zero period a line was wrongly added that the benefit of zero period will not be extended.

39. They further submitted that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of zero period benefit over the land in question uptill date as the entire physical possession of land has not been handed over to the petitioners. The petitioners are entitled for damages and compensation as the delay was on the part of Noida Authority. 34 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

40. Noida Authority in this case had issued the allotment letter way back on 29.10.2016 in favour of the petitioners without having possession of the said land. Even while allotting the said land Noida Authority had not informed the petitioners about these problems. They have misled and misrepresentated the petitioners and because of that the petitioners got into the trouble of what they are in right now.

41. It is an admitted position of Noida Authority that they have handed over the possession of only a portion of the allotted land on 17.08.2017, however, till date complete and vacant possession of the entire land in question has not been handed over to the petitioners, and therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of zero period not only till

17.08.2017 but till date or the date till the entire complete and vacant possession of the land is not handed over to them. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of zero period as per the zero period policy. However, the Authority is not extending the period only on the ground that in the order dated 12.09.2016 it was mentioned that no further benefit of zero period would be awarded to them. The condition what is in existence at that point of time is still continuing now. Since the possession of the entire allotted land was not handed over, they are entitled for the benefit of zero period. Further, the Noida Authority cannot take advantage of its own wrong to the detriment of the petitioners’ interest.

42. NOIDA Authority on 04.02.2020 has sent a notice to the petitioners seeking an update on the development of the recreational facility on the land in question for which the petitioners had given a response highlighting the various issues and sought extension of timeline and also 35 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. sought the benefit of zero period to be extended to the petitioners till the possession of entire allotted land is not handed over to them.

43. They further submitted that the benefit of directions passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bikram Chaterjee & ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.5, wherein reduced rate of interest of 8.5% was made applicable on the allottees, should be extended to the petitioners.

44. They pointed out that the Noida Authority has failed to provide access road with functioning system, which was a condition for allotment. The normal infrastructure, which was supposed to be provided, was not provided to the petitioners, and in the absence of the same, the petitioners could not carry out the development of Sports City.

45. The NOIDA Authority has also failed to take steps to intimate the petitioners of the dispute in relation to the land acquisition. On account of the abject failure of the State machinery in safeguarding the interest of allottees, the petitioners has sufferred a huge loss.

46. The additional premium, which was required for the payment of additional compensation, was already included by the NOIDA Authority at the time of allotment of the land in question to the petitioners, and as such, the land was to be given free of encumbrances. However, the land allotted was not free of encumbrances and Noida Authority did not had the possession even to allot the land, and thus, action of NOIDA Authority is nothing but a cheating and criminal breach of trust.

47. They further submitted that in spite of all the odds, the petitioners are still continuing to develop the sports city. The Additional CEO of NOIDA had visited the site and he himself was satisfied with the progress 5 2019(19) SCC 161 36 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. of the projects, the construction of infrastructure and the development of sports facility. The petitioners had submitted a detailed progress report along with the future plan in respect of the sports city project. The earlier map was approved by the NOIDA Authority but since the petitioners did not have the possession of the land, he could not execute the project, in the meanwhile the validity of the map had come to an end. The petitioners have again applied for the revalidation of the map and the same is pending. For the reasons best known to NOIDA Authority, they are not revalidating the map, though the entire delay is attributable to the NOIDA Authority. They submitted that because of the inaction of the NOIDA Authority and its failure to provide the complete possession of the land, the petitioners are unable to complete the project. Hence, the relief prayed for in the writ petition may be accorded to the petitioners. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

48. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Kaushlendra Nath Singh and Ms. Anjali Goklani, learned counsel for the Noida Authority submitted that before proceeding in the matter, it is worthwhile to mention the connection of the petitioners along with the consortium and also their antecedents.

49. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the main feature of the Sports City Scheme was the sports facilities, which is an integrated project and has to be developed as a whole. Even if a Consortium Company applied for the project, it was the Consortium as a whole that is assumed to be the lessee and not any individual company.

50. To elaborate his arguments, learned Senior Advocate for NOIDA made the following submissions. 37 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

51. The NOIDA invited applications for allotment of Sports City Plot No.SC-02 in Sector-150, NOIDA. As per the brochure a Consortium was also allowed to participate. An application for allotment of this plot was made by the Consortium in which Lead Member was M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd., along with M/s Three C Infrastructure Private Limited; M/s Three C Infra Square Private Limited; M/s Three C Buildcon Private Limited; M/s Elate Realtor Private Limited; M/s Three C Crest Promoters Private Limited, and M/s Allure Developers Private Limited on 23.6.2014.

52. As per the application, the lead member M/s Lotus Green Construction Pvt. Ltd., was a subsidiary company of M/s Three C Universal Developers Pvt Ltd. The bid was made on the qualification of M/s Three C Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, which was also one of its group company. Surprisingly, Sports City 01/78-79 was also allotted to the same group of companies on the basis of the qualification of the same company i.e. M/s Three C Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

53. Normally, a Consortium is a group of different companies/ builders/ developers, who come together to complete a project. However, in this case most of the members in the consortium were companies, which were incorporated by the same set of Directors/Promoters.

54. On the request of the Lead Member of the Consortium, Noida Authority executed separate Lease Deeds in favour of the Members of the Consortium. Here the original allottee had made a web of companies and on the request of the allottee, various lease deeds were signed by the companies, which were wholly owned and controlled by the promoters namely, Nirmal Singh, Surpreet Singh Suri and Vidur Bhardwaj. 38 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. However, a perusal of the said lease deed, elucidates that the Sports City Project was supposed to be developed as an integrated whole.

55. The original allottee representing the entire group filed a Master Lay Out Plan for development of the entire Sports City, which was approved, in which they themselves had divided the roles and obligations of each companies towards the development of the project. This decision was an internal arrangement between the consortium members. As far as Noida Authority is concerned, the sports city is an integral project, which had to be developed by the consortium as per the scheme.

56. The Consortium made a request for grant of zero period as the possession of the entire land had not been granted to the Consortium. The NOIDA Authority vide order dated 12.9.2016 declared zero period for the sports city project for an area of 9,94,218 sq meters till 30.09.2016. It was made clear that no further benefit of zero period would be extended to the allottes. This letter/order was never challenged by the petitioners and it has attained finality. After taking the benefit once it is not open for the petitioners to ask for the same benefit again.

57. In spite of availing the benefit of the zero period, and after execution of the fresh payment plan, the petitioners still did not pay the due instalments and a notice for payment of the dues was issued, as of now the outstanding dues for the sports city, as on 31.7.2020, was Rs.1215.14 crore.

58. An audit was conducted by the CAG, who pointed out certain deficiencies in the allotment, implementation and development of sports city. The report of the CAG was tabled in September 2020. Thereafter, the meeting of the Board of NOIDA was held on 18.01.2021 (201st Board 39 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Meeting) in which it was resolved that recommendation should be made to PAC to look into the deficiencies pointed out by CAG and give a report. As an interim measure, it was further resolved that no action should be taken towards development of sports city nor any maps should be revalidated. Further, on the basis of the report submitted in the next Board meeting (202nd) held on 25.06.2021, it was resolved that the matter may be referred to the State Government for necessary guidance and direction.

59. The decision of the Board meeting (201st Meeting), and the subsequent fallout of the decision are the main ground of challenge in various writ petitions filed by the developers in this Court.

60. From the perusal of the brochure, it is evident that various components of development in the Project has been clearly demarcated in percentages. The entire scheme of the Sports City Project discloses that group housing/ residential purpose is complimentary to the principal objective of development of the sports facilities. The residential purpose and the commercial purpose being complementary to the development of sports facility, hence it can only be viewed to be an integrated project.

61. The sub-lessee cannot claim to be created only for development of Group Housing Project as this will be an antithesis to the integrated project scheme under which the allotment was done.

62. Since, Group Housing does not come in the category of project on a stand alone basis under the Sports City Scheme it cannot be conceived to be a complete project without development of the sports facilities, inasmuch as the sports facility is the primary project and group housing is 40 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. complimenting the sports facility project and in that sense Group Housing becomes an integral part of the project.

63. As per the sanctioned map, the obligations taken upon themselves for each company in SC-02/ Sector-150 ( M/s Three C Green Developers Sports City Pvt. Ltd.) were as follows:- S.No. Name of Subsidary Company Secto r No. Sub Divided Plot No. Plot Area (Sqm.) Sports Activities as per Approved Layout Plan Status as per Site

1. Land Kart Builders Pvt. Ltd., 150 SC- 02/A1

83970.00 Tennis Centre-1  Tower-1, G+1  Tower-2,3,4 Ground Floor  Tower19,20,21  Foundation and Rafting work

2. Wiztown Planners Pvt. Ltd., 150 SC- 02/A3

27185.00 Pro Shops/ Food and Beverage  Site is Vacant. Work not started.

7. 8 Brick Town Developers Pvt. Ltd. Stroung Biz Prop build Pvt. Ltd., Wishland Buildzone Pvt. Ltd., Wondrous Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., 150 SC- 02/A6

37915.00 Basket Ball/ Badminton Court  Site is Vacant. Work not started. SC- 02/A7

50790.00 ----  Tower-A,B,C, Foundation work is started.  Tower-D,E,F,G Foundation excavation work is started. 150 SC- 02/A8

50560.00  Site is Vacant. Work not started. 150 SC- 02/A9

80857.00 Cricket Academy  Tower-Life-1, B+S+3  Tower-Life-2, B+S+3  Tower-Verbe-1 B+S+1  Tower-Verbe-2 B+S  Tower-Verbe-3 B+S  Tower-Verbe-4 Foundation and Rafting. Elate Realtors Pvt. Ltd., 150 SC- 02/B

100000.00 ----  Site vacant Samridhi Infra Square Pvt. Ltd., 150 SC- 02/D

40186.50 ---  Tower D,E,F,G,H,I- Structure complete, finishing work in progress.  Tower JG+1  Tower C, K, L-G Floor.  Tower-A & B-Construction not started. 41 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Samridhi Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. 150 SC- 02/E

32519.22 ---  Sport Activity not developed.  Work not started. Site is Vacant. 150 SC- 02/F

58064.71 ---  Foundation work started. 150 SC- 02/G

60000.00 ---  Work not started. Site is Vacant. 150 SC- 02/H &1 72000.00 ---

12. ACE Infracity Developers Pvt. Ltd., Crest Promotors Pvt. Ltd., Brick Rise Developers Pvt. Ltd., Tower-A1-G+9 Tower-A2-G+11  Tower-A1A-A2A-Rafting  Tower-B1-G+5  Tower-B2 G+6  Tower-B3-G+7  Tower-C1-G+7  Tower-BIA, B2A, B3A, CIA, DIA & D1- Foundation work.  Tower-1 B+S+  Tower-2,3 Basement  Tower-4-B+S+1  Tower-5, Basement only  Tower -6, B+5  Tower-7,8,9,10,11 & 12- Foundation Piling work.

13. Fest Homes Developers Pvt. Ltd., 150 SC- 02/J & K

72000.00 Tennis Centre-3 OUTSTANDING DUES OF THE SPORT CITIES as on 31.7.2020

64. The total dues of the various Sports cities by their developers were as under:- Serial No. Name of the developer Plot / sector Description of Dues ( In CRORES) i. M/s Three C Green sector 78, 79 and

401.01 Developers Pvt. Ltd., 101 ii. M/s Logix Infra developer SC-01/150

1685.74 Pvt. Ltd., iii. M/s Three C Green SC-02/150

1215.14 Developers Sports city Pvt. 42 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Ltd. iv. M/s ATS Homes Pvt. Ltd., SC-01/152

609.18 Total outstanding

3911.07 Dues This outstanding dues as on 31.7.2020, is Rs 3911.07 crores, coupled with the contractual rate of interest till January 2025 the total dues will become more than Rs. 6300 CRORES.

65. The break-up of outstanding Dues as on 31.7.2020 of the SC-02 Sector 150 was as follows:- S.NO Name of Builder Plot No. Total dues as per Lease deed

14. M/S LOTUS GREEN CONSTRUCTIONPVT LDT. SC-02/A/150 M/S LAND KART BUILDERS PVT LDT. SC-02/A1/150 M/S BUILDWALL BUILDERS PVT LDT. SC-02/A2/150 M/S STROUNG BIZ PROP BUILD PVT LDT. SC-02/A7/150 M/S WISHLAND BUILDZONE PVT LDT. SC-02/A8/150 M/S WONDEOUS BUILDMART PVT LDT. SC-02/A9/150 M/S ESCARPMENT BUILDCRAFT PVT LDT. SC-02/A10/150 M/S ELATE REALTORS PVT LDT. SC-02/B/150 M/S SAMRIDHI BUILDMART PVT LDT. SC-02/E/150 M/S BRICK RISE DEVELOPER PVT.LTD. SC-02/H&I/150 M/S FESTHOME DEVELOPER PVT. LTD SC-02/J&K/150 M/S BRICK TOWN DEVELOPERS PVT LDT. SC-02/A6/150 M/S VILLA STONE PROPBUILD PVT. LTD. SC-02/N/150 M/S ACE INFRACITY DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD SC-02/G/150

173.25

32.05

111.34

35.22

84.38

51.36

160.81

170.43

50.4

44.79

21.8

60.25

19.4

22.52 43 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

17. M/S ACE INFRACITY DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD SC-02/F/150 M/S ALLUURE DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD. SC-02/C/150 M/S NYMPHES INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. SC-02/L/150

14.15

94.58

68.41 TOTAL 1,215.14

66. This outstanding as on 31.7.2020 of all the allottees of SC-02/150 was Rs.1,215.14 crores, upon adding the contractual rate of interest, the outstanding till January 2025 will be more then 2,700 crores.

67. He further submitted that the way, the provisions of the lease deed and the conditions of the scheme in the brochure were modified/ changed, was quite questionable. It is only after change of the State Government, the scam was unearthed, and the audit report was referred to the CAG. The State Government took a very proactive stand and did not grant any extension or revalidation of map because of the illegality done by the allottees. CHANGE IN SHAREHOLDINGS OF VARIOUS COMPANIES

68. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Advocate submitted that as per the ROC the share holdings of the allottee company has changed after the allotment, though the same was not permissible in the scheme and the brochure. This was done without the permission of the Noida authority .

69. He further submitted that the sports city SC 02/150 was not being developed as per the brochure conditions and the terms of the lease deed. 44 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. The allottee has extensively violated the terms and conditions, hence he is not entitled for any relief.

70. The petitioners had already availed the benefit of zero period and they are not entitled for any further reliefs. The possession of the land was given along with the allotment letter, the petitioners had the possession and they had started construction of the residential part after the map approval. How can the residential part be constructed when there was no infrastructural facility or the land was encroached. He, therefore, submitted that the plea of encroachment has only been raised by the petitioners, just to avoid payment of dues and to complete their part of obligations. FURTHER ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONERS

71. In response to the above submissions, Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that PAC, which was already looking into the matter, has resolved the issue. Accordingly, an application was also filed to the effect that the issues have already been resolved by the PAC. He, therefore, sought for disposal of the writ petition in terms of the directions of the PAC. ANALYSIS BY THE COURT

72. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. With the able assistance, we have perused the pleadings, grounds taken in the petition, affidavits and annexures thereto and the reply filed by concerned parties.

73. The issues involved in this bunch of writ petition can be categorised into the following heads:- 45 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. A) Deviations in the Sports City Project. B) Illegal sale/ transfer of plots. C) Outstanding dues D) Illegal benefits to the allottees. E) Need for lifting of corporate veil F) Liabilities of the Original Allottee with regard to its subsidiaries G) Conduct of the petitioner H) Withdrawal of the Writ Petitions I) Scope of judicial interference J) Inquiry against the delinquent officer & and other conspirators by C.B.I. K) Conclusions DEVIATIONS

74. As per the terms of the Brochure of the Sports City, Clause 8 of the Eligibility conditions laid down the conditions for the allottee, in case they were applying as a Consortium. It specifically stated that members of consortium will have to specify one Lead Member, who would be the single largest shareholder having at least 30% share in the consortium. The shareholding of the lead member in the consortium shall remain at least 30% till the temporary occupancy/completion certificate of at least one phase of the project is obtained from the NOIDA.

75. However, on the date when the map was approved, the share of the lead member was less than 12% of the entire project. The sub-division of petitioners’ share was not possible under the Scheme, but in the present case, it has been done, which cannot be recognised by the Noida authority. The claim of the Lead member that the balance shares were allowed to be transferred, and were held in its subsidiary company, can only be substantiated, if they still hold 100% shares of the subsidiary 46 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. company. If the same has been diluted then the division would be patently illegal and contrary to the conditions of the sports city scheme/ project.

76. The NOIDA Authority has to look into this aspect and if the division is found contrary to the conditions of the scheme, then suitable penal action should immediately be taken against the allottee / lead member / petitioner. (I)FORMATION OF THE SCHEME

77. The way the scheme was formulated was also not upto the mark. The object of the scheme was for a proper development of the sports city, the division and sub-division of plots, and the transfer without the permission of NOIDA Authority, would not have been the part of the scheme as it was antithesis to its objects.

78. However, the lessee/Sub-lessee(s) were allowed to transfer upto 100% of its shareholding, subject to the only condition that the “Lead Member” (on the date of submission of the tender) shall continue to hold at least 30% of the shareholding in the SPC till the temporary occupancy/ completion certificate at least one phase of the project is obtained from NOIDA. In compliance with the Govt. Order No. 5007/11-5- 2010500(50)/10 DATED 11th October, 2010, issued by the Department of Tax & Registration, Government of Uttar Pradesh, the change in the name of shareholders does not amount to transfer of the property of the Company. The Change in Constitution Deed6 regarding change in the shareholders as a result of transfer of share in the Companies is not mandatory to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act,

1908. In addition to this, no stamp duty is leviable on this CIC deed under Clause 23 of Schedule 1b of the Stamp Act, 1899. No transfer charges

6. CIC 47 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. shall be leviable on the transfer of shares in the Companies and no prior approval of the NOIDA shall be required for transferring the shares. (II) APPROVAL OF THE BID

79. The bid was approved on the qualification of M/s Three C Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and the project was allotted to a company headed by M/s Lotus Green Construction Pvt. Ltd.. The company, on whose basis the project was allotted, was itself found missing. The project was allotted to the company,which was not even eligible to bid in individual capacity. The Consortium had nine members, out of which seven were incorporated after the scheme was declared, and all the seven companies were incorporated by the same set of promoters at the same address.

80. If we delve deep into the reason for incorporating new companies by the same person, it becomes quite clear that the promoters’ right from inception had the intention of transferring/ selling these companies to different entities. If that had not been the intention, there was no other reason to incorporate so many companies and get the allotment issued in their names.

81. Now the next question is why did the officials of the NOIDA Authority agree for such a division which was contrary to the scheme and the brochure, and specially, when the sports city was an integrated project. (III) FAILURE ON BEHALF OF NOIDA AUTHORITY

82. Such a scam of massive magnitude cannot happen without the involvement of officers of NOIDA Authority holding the key posts. The 48 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. offence was committed regularly for years and undue favours were extended to the allottees. It will not be wrong to say that all the officials, who were the decision makers, were involved from 2011 till date, were involved either directly or indirectly.

83. The officials on the key post of the NOIDA Authority kept their eyes closed, while the builders were selling and developing the residential apartments, but did not do anything towards the development of the sports facilities, which they were supposed to develop first. Purposely, a long rope were given to the builders to collect money from the homebuyers and after syphoning away the same, get the company into insolvency and walk away scot free.

84. Apparently, the Sports City in Sector 150 was allotted to a Consortium. All the Consortium Members including the Relevant Members, were the companies, which were incorporated after the scheme was floated and before the scheme was closed. The promoters in all the companies were Nirmal Singh, Vidur Bhardwaj and Surpreet Singh Suri. There was no reason for these three people to incorporate so many new companies as Relevant Members, unless and until, it was a pre-fabricated design to sell off these companies at a high premium without getting sports city allotted in their favour.

85. The mens rea of these promoters were apparent. After the allotment of the Sports City Project in their favour, their sole intention was to bifurcate the entire Sports City into various plots and sell it at very high premium to the builders at market price, whereas they had only paid 20% of the allotment money and chose not to pay the further dues. 49 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

86. Right from the day one the intention of the promoters was only to make money by selling the project to other companies and at the end the companies, which were supposed to develop the sports facilities, were pushed into insolvency.

87. The officers of NOIDA Authority, who were hand in glove with these promoters and subsequent purchasers, chose not to ask for the installments, whenever the same fell due. The intention of the promoters was never to develop the sports city, and that is why even when the maps were sanctioned, the obligation to develop all the sports facilities was kept with two or three companies and the rest of the companies were given benefit of developing the residential flats. The decision was such that the cream of this project was diverted to these smaller companies and all the liabilities to develop the sports facility were kept with two companies. Obviously, these two companies had no intention to develop the sports facilities.

88. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of judgments has held that in case of fraud and where there is need, the Court can pierce the corporate veil and see whether different juristic companies are held by same people or actually they are different juristic personality. In this case, it seems that in some companies the shareholdings have been transferred, but as per the sports city scheme and brochure, no transfer could have happened, unless and until the first phase of sports city is complete. Hence, any transfer done by the promoters of the sports city is invalid.

89. By piercing the corporate veil it is clear that both the Sports City Projects i.e SC-01/Sector 78 & & 79 and SC-02/Sector 150 have been allotted to same set of people. In the present case, haphazard construction has been carried out by various smaller companies, which are supposedly 50 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 100% subsidiaries of these promoters/companies. If this is a situation where the proposed sports city cannot be developed, then it is advisable that such sports facility may be developed in SC-01, Sector 78 & 79 and SC-02, Sector 150, NOIDA as both the sports cities have been allotted to the same developers/promoters. They cannot hide behind the smoke screen and mask themselves as different juristic personalities and the liabilities of other companies cannot be fastened on them. (B) ILLEGAL SALE

90. During the course of arguments, the petitioners have suggested that other reputed builders are ready to complete the project. This shows the malafide intention of the petitioners is just to sell away the project to other builders.

91. The intention of sports city was not to grant undue benefit to the allottee. The petitioners herein were also supposed to carry out construction of sports facility, which had to be completed within three years, whereas the residential flats were to be completed within seven years. The promoters had no intention for developing the sports facility. The promoters got the map sanctioned, and then launched the project and started booking flats and collected hundreds of crores of rupees from the homebuyers and did not even complete the residential project neither the sports facility. All the money was syphoned off and now after syphoning off the money, they want to further take undue advantage of the project by selling it off to various reputed builders and further make money.

92. Not only this, they have further chose not to pay the installments of NOIDA Authority and also want to take benefit of escalation of price of the project land by palming it off to other builders. 51 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

93. The petitioners cannot take advantage of arbitrage, wherein they get allotment done in their favour by paying part amount, then they do not complete construction of sports facility and the other obligations, which came with the allotment. The promoters have been illegally benefiting themselves in the following manner:- “(i) by getting almost 13 lakh sqm land against approved and assigned sports city scheme over 12 lakh sqm land. (ii) by not paying the dues of Noida Authority. (iii) by not completing the project in time. (iv) by collecting money from the homebuyers and not building the residential flats. (v) by bifurcating the entire sports city in such a way that liability of setting up the sports facility is only assigned to few companies whereas the other companies get the benefit of reaping profit by developing and selling the residential part of sports city. (vi) by taking advantage of price escalation of land and now by selling it off to various other builders at high premium.”

94. This Court cannot be a silent spectator of the fraud being played by the promoters in clear connivance with the officials of NOIDA Authority. The petitioners along with other builders have filed various writs in the year 2021, 2022 and while the petitions were pending, the PAC was formed in July 2023. Although, initially it was decided by the PAC not to touch the issues, which are pending before the High Court or NCLT, still it seems that PAC has granted them certain benefits and they wanted to negotiate the same. The same was not opposed by NOIDA Authority and NOIDA Authority also requested to extend the benefit to the builders. However, the State Government in its affidavit dated 19.11.2024 had made certain reservations on the imposition of recommendations of PAC. (C) OUTSTANDING DUES OF SPORTS CITIES

95. The total dues of the various Sports cities by their developers as on

31.07.2020 were as follows:- 52 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Serial No. i. ii. iii. Name of the developer Plot / sector Description of Dues ( IN CRORES) M/s Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd., Sector 78, 79 and 101 401.01 M/s Logix Infra developer Pvt. Ltd., SC-01/150

1685.74 M/s Three C Green Developers Sports city Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/150

1215.14 iv. M/s ATS Homes Pvt. Ltd., SC-01/152

609.18 Total outstanding Dues

3911.07

96. This outstanding, as on 31.7.2020, was Rs.3911.07 crores, with the contractual rate of interest till January 2025 the outstanding dues would be more than Rs.6300 crores.

97. The outstanding dues as on 31.7.2020 of various companies in Sports City SC-02 sector 150 was as follows:- S.No. Name of Builder Plot No. Total dues as per Lease deed

6. M/S LOTUS GREEN CONSTRUCTION PVT LDT. SC-02/A/150

173.25 M/S LAND KART BUILDERS PVT LDT. SC-02/A1/150

32.05 M/S BUILDWALL BUILDERS PVT LDT. SC-02/A2/150

111.34 M/S STROUNG BIZ PROP BUILD PVT LDT. SC-02/A7/150

35.22 M/S WISHLAND BUILDZONE PVT LDT. SC-02/A8/150

84.38 M/S WONDEOUS BUILDMART SC-02/A9/150

51.36 53 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

17. PVT LDT. M/S ESCARPMENT BUILDCRAFT PVT LDT. SC-02/A10/150

160.81 M/S ELATE REALTORS PVT LDT. SC-02/B/150

170.43 M/S SAMRIDHI BUILDMART PVT LDT. SC-02/E/150

50.4 M/S BRICK RISE DEVELOPER PVT.LTD. SC-02/H&I/150

44.79 M/S FESTHOME DEVELOPER PVT. LTD SC-02/J&K/150

21.8 M/S BRICK TOWN DEVELOPERS PVT LDT. SC-02/A6/150

60.25 M/S VILLA STONE PROPBUILD PVT. LTD. SC-02/N/150

19.4 M/S ACE INFRACITY DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD M/S ACE INFRACITY DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD SC-02/G/150 SC-02/F/150 M/S ALLUURE DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD. SC-02/C/150 M/S NYMPHES INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. SC-02/L/150

22.52

14.15

94.58

68.41 TOTAL 1,215.14

98. This outstanding as on 31.7.2020 of all the allottees of SC-02 /150 was Rs.1215.14 crores, with the contractual rate of interest and the outstanding till January 2025 will be more than Rs.2,700 crores. These 54 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. dues were not paid and shockingly, the officials of NOIDA Authority did not take any steps to recover the same.

99. All the companies gave an undertaking that they will complete their part of sports facilities within next three years, but the same was not carried out.

100. Looking into the market conditions, and the problems of the developers, the State of U.P. issued G.O. on 09.06.2020, whereby the interest applicable on the development projects were reduced. The G.O. reads as follows:- "महत्वपूण! संख्य आपत्तियाँा-1587/77-4-20-36 एन/20 आलोक कु मार, प्रमुख सधिचव, उ(cid:20)र प्रAे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श शासन। प्रे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग oक, से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग वा में भूखण्डों की मुख्य आपत्तियाँ काय आपत्तियाँ(cid:25)पालक अधि-कारी नौएडा, ग्रे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टर नौएडा, य आपत्तियाँमुना एक्सप्रे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग सवे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग य आपत्तियाँूपीसीडा, गीडा, लीडा, सीडा एवं डी०एम०आई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ०सी०-आई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ०आई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ०टी०जी०एन०एल०। उपय आपत्तियाँु औद्योटिगक टिवकास अनुभाग-4 टिवoय आपत्तियाँः औद्योटिगक टिवकास प्राधि-करर्ण हैों की में भूखण्डों की लागू ब्य आपत्तियाँाज Aरों की में भूखण्डों की कमी टिकए जाने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग संबं- में भूखण्डों की । महोAय आपत्तियाँ, लखनऊः टिAनांक 09 जून, 2020 (cid:25)क्त अन्य तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटीज का विकास ग्रुप टिवoय आपत्तियाँक अवगत कराना है टिक को योग्यधिवड से अधिक की धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।-19 महामारी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है। से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिनपटने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग त्तिलए एन.सी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।.आर. क्षेत्र के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तीन औद्योटिगक टिवकास प्राधि-करर्ण हैों की की सटिमधित द्वारा औद्योटिगक टिवकास प्राधि-करर्ण है में भूखण्डों की लागू ब्य आपत्तियाँाज Aरों की को कम करने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग की संस्तुधित की गय आपत्तियाँी है। 2. मुख्य आपत्तियाँ काय आपत्तियाँ(cid:25)पालक अधि-कारी ग्रे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टर नौएडा एवं य आपत्तियाँमुना एक्सप्रे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग सवे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग औद्योटिगक टिवकास प्राधि-करर्ण है द्वारा की गय आपत्तियाँी संस्तुधित पर सम्य आपत्तियाँक टिवचारोपरान्त सभी औद्योटिगक टिवकास प्राधि-करर्ण हैों की को टिनम्नवत परामश(cid:25) टिAय आपत्तियाँा जाता है- I. तीन वo(cid:25) की अवधि- के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ऋर्ण है हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु एस०बी०आई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ० के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग एम०सी०एल०आर० Aर पर प्रशासटिनक व्य आपत्तियाँय आपत्तियाँ 1.00 प्रधितशत को शाटिमल करते कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हुए अगले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग 0.5 प्रधितशत के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग स्तर तक Round off करते कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हुए ब्य आपत्तियाँाज Aरें भूखण्डों की लागू की जाए। उक्त अन्य तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटीज का विकास ग्रुप फामू (cid:25)ले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अनुसार प्रत्य आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग क वo(cid:25) में भूखण्डों की 01 जनवरी और 01 जुलाई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ को ब्य आपत्तियाँाज Aरें भूखण्डों की पुनर्निन-ारिरत की जाए। II. समय आपत्तियाँ से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग Aे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग य आपत्तियाँों की के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग भुगतान को प्रोत्साटिहत करने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग उद्दे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श्य आपत्तियाँ से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग धिडफॉल्ट -नराशि वसूल कर ली गयी है। स्पोर्ट्सश पर धिडफॉल्ट अवधि- हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु Aण्ड ब्य आपत्तियाँाज Aर 03 प्रधितशत (प्रत्य आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग क 06 माह में भूखण्डों की कम्पाउडिंडग करते कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हुए) लागू की जाए। III. उपय आपत्तियाँु (cid:25)क्त अन्य तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटीज का विकास ग्रुप Aरें भूखण्डों की आगामी प्रभाव से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ही लागू की जाए ना टिक भूतलक्षी प्रभाव से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग । IV. एस०बी०आई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ० पी०एल०आर० पर आबंटिटत परिरसम्पत्ति(cid:20)य आपत्तियाँों की के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग त्तिलए उनके कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग आवे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग Aन पत्र/ लीज डीड उसिल्लत्तिखत शतE के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अनुसार ब्य आपत्तियाँाज Aर Aे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग य आपत्तियाँ होगा। इस सम्बन्- में भूखण्डों की मुझे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग य आपत्तियाँह कहने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग का टिनAeश हुआ है टिक कृ पय आपत्तियाँा उपय आपत्तियाँु (cid:25)क्त अन्य तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटीज का विकास ग्रुपानुसार आवश्य आपत्तियाँक

3. काय आपत्तियाँ(cid:25)वाही सुटिनधि{त करने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग का कO करें भूखण्डों की । 55 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. भवAीय आपत्तियाँ ह० अपठनीय आपत्तियाँ (आलोक कु मार) प्रमुख सधिचव।" D) ILLEGAL BENEFITS TO THE ALLOTTEES

101. In reference to Government order. dated 09.06.2020, the Noida Authority issued an Office Order on 01.07.2020, wherein rate of interest was reduced to 8.5% but the Group Housing Projects were excluded. The order is quoted hereunder :- "नवीन ओखला औद्योटिगक टिवकास प्राधि-करर्ण है मुख्य आपत्तियाँ प्रशासटिनक भवन से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग क्टर-6, नौएडा गौतम बुZ नगर प# रांकः नो योग्यएड से अधिक की धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।ा/धिव०धिन०/2020/3471 दि(cid:2)नांकः 01/07/2020 काय आपत्तियाँा(cid:25)लय आपत्तियाँ आAे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श प्रमुख सधिचव, औद्योटिगक टिवकास अनुभाग-4, उ(cid:20)र प्रAे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श शासन, लखनऊ के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग पत्र संख्य आपत्तियाँाः 1567/77-4-20-36 एन/20 टिAनांक 09 जून, 2020 के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग क्रम में भूखण्डों की 01 जुलाई, 2020 से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ब्य आपत्तियाँाज Aरें भूखण्डों की पुनर्निन-ारिरत टिकय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग जाने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग सम्बन्- में भूखण्डों की प्राधि-करर्ण है द्वारा पूव(cid:25) में भूखण्डों की काय आपत्तियाँा(cid:25)लय आपत्तियाँ आAे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श संख्य आपत्तियाँाः नौएडा/ मु०का०अ०/2020/3464 टिAनांक 25.06.2020 जारी टिकय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा था। धिदनांक 01 जुलाई, 2020 को स्टे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ट बैंक ऑफ इंधिडय आपत्तियाँा की Aरों की के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अनुसार ब्य आपत्तियाँाज Aरें भूखण्डों की टिनम्नानुसार हैं - 1. #ी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।न वo(cid:25) की अवधि- के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ऋर्ण है हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु एस०बी०आई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ० के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग एम०सी०एल०आर० Aर टिAनांक 01 जुलाई, 2020 को 7.30 प्रधितशत है, सिजस पर प्रशासटिनक व्य आपत्तियाँय आपत्तियाँ 1 प्रधितशत शाटिमल करते कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हुए अगले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग 0.5 प्रधितशत के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग स्तर तक Round off करने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग पर 8.50 प्रधितशत आगशि वसूल कर ली गयी है। स्पोर्ट्सर्ण हैत होता है। 2. समय आपत्तियाँ से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग Aे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग य आपत्तियाँों की को भुगतान को प्रोत्साटिहत करने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग उद्दे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श्य आपत्तियाँ से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग धिडफाल्ट -नराशि वसूल कर ली गयी है। स्पोर्ट्सश पर धिडफाल्ट अवधि- हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु Aण्ड ब्य आपत्तियाँाज Aर 3 प्रधितशत (प्रत्य आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग क 06 माह में भूखण्डों की कम्पाउडिंडग करते कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हु ए) लागू की जाय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग । अतः प्राधि-करर्ण है की सभी सम्पत्ति(cid:20)य आपत्तियाँों की के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग समस्त Aे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग य आपत्तियाँों की पर (ग्रुप हाउसिंसग को छ लैण्ड पार्सल का कब्जा नही दिया गया है। कब्जा दिलवाया जाये।ोड़ की देनदारी है।कर) उपरोक्त अन्य तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटीज का विकास ग्रुप शतE के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अनुसार ब्य आपत्तियाँाज Aर 8.50 प रधितशत टिAनांक 01 जुलाई, 2020 से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग लागू टिकय आपत्तियाँा जाता है, जो टिAनांक 31 धिदसम्बर, 2020 तक लागू रहे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग गा। मा० सव|च्च न्य आपत्तियाँाय आपत्तियाँालय आपत्तियाँ में भूखण्डों की Aाय आपत्तियाँर रिरट य आपत्तियाँाधिचका संख्य आपत्तियाँा 940/2017 में भूखण्डों की य आपत्तियाँोसिजत I.A. संख्या 49139 में भूखण्डों की Clarification आने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग उपरान्त ग्रुप हाउसिंसग के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग सम्बन्- में भूखण्डों की टिनर्ण है(cid:25)य आपत्तियाँ त्तिलय आपत्तियाँा जाय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग गा। 01 जनवरी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।, 2021 को स्टे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ट बैंक ऑफ इंधिडय आपत्तियाँा के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग MCLR के अनुसार पुनः Aरें भूखण्डों की टिन-ा(cid:25)रिरत की जाय आपत्तियाँें भूखण्डों की गी। ह० अपठनीय आपत्तियाँ (धिरतु माहे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श्वरी) मुख्य आपत्तियाँ काय आपत्तियाँ(cid:25)पालक अधि-कारी"

102. Thereafter on 05.01.2021, the Noida Authority had issued a fresh Office Order, whereby it was made clear that the benefit of the reduced rate of interest of 8.5% would not be applicable to the group housing and 56 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. sports city projects. The letter dated 05.01.2021 is quoted below for ready reference :- "नवीन ओखला औद्योटिगक टिवकास प्राधि-करर्ण है मुख्य आपत्तियाँ प्रशासटिनक भवन से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग क्टर-6, नौएडा गौतम बुZ नगर पत्रांकः नो योग्यएड से अधिक की धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।ा/धिव०धिन०/2021/09 धिदनांकः 05/01/2021 काय आपत्तियाँा(cid:25)लय आपत्तियाँ आAे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श प्रमुख सधिचव, औद्योटिगक टिवकास अनुभाग प्रमाण -4, उ(cid:20)र प्रAे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श शासन, लखनऊ के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग पत्र संख्य आपत्तियाँाः 1567/77-4-20-36एन/20 धिदनांक 09 जून, 2020 के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग क्रम में भूखण्डों की प्राधि-करर्ण है द्वारा काय आपत्तियाँा(cid:25)लय आपत्तियाँ आAे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श संख्य आपत्तियाँाः नौएड से अधिक की धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।ा/धिव०धिन०/2020/3471 धिदनांक 01.07.2020 के द्वारा स्टे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ट बैंक आफ इंधिडय आपत्तियाँा की Aरों की के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अनुसार ब्य आपत्तियाँाज Aरें भूखण्डों की टिनम्नानुसार टिन-ा(cid:25)रिरत की गई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ थी-

1. 3 वo(cid:25) की अवधि- के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ऋर्ण है हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु एस०बी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।०आई० के एम०सी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।०एल०आर० दर धिदनांक 01 जुलाई, 2020 को योग्य 7.30 प रधि#(cid:24)# है, सिजस पर प्रशासटिनक व्य आपत्तियाँय आपत्तियाँ 1 प्रधितशत शाटिमल करते कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हुएे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अग प्रमाण ले 0.5 प रधि#(cid:24)# के स्#र #क Round off करने पर 8.50 प रधि#(cid:24)# आग प्रमाण धिण# हो योग्य#ा है। 2. समय आपत्तियाँ से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग Aे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग य आपत्तियाँों की को भुगतान को प्रोत्साटिहत करने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग उद्दे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श्य आपत्तियाँ से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग धिडफाल्ट -नराशि वसूल कर ली गयी है। स्पोर्ट्सश पर धिडफाल्ट अवधि- हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु Aण्ड ब्य आपत्तियाँाज Aर 3 प रधि#(cid:24)# (प रत्येक 06 माह में भूखण्डों की कम्पाउडिंडग करते कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हुए) लागू की जाय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग । अतः प्राधि-करर्ण है की सभी सम्पत्ति(cid:20)य आपत्तियाँों की के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग समस्त Aे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग य आपत्तियाँों की पर ( ग्रुप हाउसिंसग स्पोट(cid:25) सिसटी को छ लैण्ड पार्सल का कब्जा नही दिया गया है। कब्जा दिलवाया जाये।ोड़ की देनदारी है।कर) उपरोक्त अन्य तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटीज का विकास ग्रुप शतE के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अनुसार ब्य आपत्तियाँाज Aर 8.50 प्रधितशत ही टिAनांक 01 जनवरी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।, 2021 से धिदनांक 30 जून, 2021 #क लाग प्रमाण ू रहेग प्रमाण ी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।। ग्रुप हाउसिंसग/स्पोट(cid:25) सिसटी की ब्य आपत्तियाँाज Aरों की के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग सम्बन्- में भूखण्डों की टिनर्ण है(cid:25)य आपत्तियाँ मा० सव|च्च न्य आपत्तियाँाय आपत्तियाँालय आपत्तियाँ में भूखण्डों की य आपत्तियाँोसिजत रिरट य आपत्तियाँाधिचका के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अंधितम टिनर्ण है(cid:25)य आपत्तियाँ के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग प{ातu त्तिलय आपत्तियाँा जाय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग गा। 01 जुलाई, 2021 को स्टे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ट बैंक आफ इंधिडय आपत्तियाँा के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग एम०सी०एल०आर० के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अनुसार पुनः Aरें भूखण्डों की टिन-ा(cid:25)रिरत की जाय आपत्तियाँें भूखण्डों की गी। ह० अपठनीय आपत्तियाँ (रिरतु माहे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श्वरी) मुख्य आपत्तियाँ काय आपत्तियाँ(cid:25)पालक अधि-कारी"

103. However, the officials of the NOIDA Authority, who were in collusion and were bent upon granting undue favours to the builders/developers of the Sports City, in contravention to its own office orders, and contrary to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court, issued a notice on 27.03.2023 illegally extending the benefit of Government order dated 09.06.2020 to one of the allottee. The letter dated 27.03.2023 is reproduced below:- "नवीन मुख्य आपत्तियाँ ओखला प्रशासटिनक औद्योटिगक भवन टिवकास प्राधि-करर्ण है -6, नौएड से अधिक की धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।ा सैक्टर पत्र संख्य आपत्तियाँा नौएड से अधिक की धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।ा/स्पो योग्यट! धिसटी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।/2023/2944 धिदनांकः 27/3/23 57 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. M/s Elate Realtors Pvt. Ltd. D-107, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi नोटिटस के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अन्तग(cid:25)त आबंधिट# / उपधिवभाधिज# भूखण्ड संख्य आपत्तियाँा टिवoय आपत्तियाँः- स्पोट(cid:25) एस०सी सिसटी य आपत्तियाँोजना -150 में भूखण्डों की । सैक्टर के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग संबं- ० -02/B, कृ पय आपत्तियाँा स्पोट(cid:25) सिसटी य आपत्तियाँोजना के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अन्तग(cid:25)त आवंधिट#/उपधिवभाधिज# उक्त अन्य तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटीज का विकास ग्रुप भूखण्ड का आवंटन/उपधिवभाजन आपके कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग पक्ष में भूखण्डों की टिकय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा एवं पट टा प रलेख धिदनांक 19.12.2014 को आपके कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग पक्ष में भूखण्डों की टिनष्पाटिAत टिकय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा है। आवंटन पत्र/उप टिवभाजन प# र/पट टा प रलेख/उप पट टा प्रले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ख में भूखण्डों की इंटिगत पे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग में भूखण्डों की ट शे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग डय आपत्तियाँूल के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अनुसार आपको टिकश्तों की की मA में भूखण्डों की Aे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग य आपत्तियाँ -नराशि वसूल कर ली गयी है। स्पोर्ट्सश एवं भू-भाटक का भुगतान करना था, टिकन्तु आपके कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग द्वारा टिनय आपत्तियाँत अवधि- में भूखण्डों की -नराशि वसूल कर ली गयी है। स्पोर्ट्सश का भुगतान नहीं किये। टिकय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा है जो आवंटन की शतE तथा पट्टा प्रले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ख/उप पट्टा प्रले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ख की शतE का उल्लंघन है। वत(cid:25)मान में भूखण्डों की उक्त अन्य तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटीज का विकास ग्रुप भूखण्ड के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिवरूZ धिदनांक 31.03.2023 तक टिवशि वसूल कर ली गयी है। स्पोर्ट्सभन्न मAों की में भूखण्डों की अधितAे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग य आपत्तियाँ -नराशि वसूल कर ली गयी है। स्पोर्ट्सश का टिववरर्ण है टिनम्नवतu हैः- 1 रू०-283,69,89,418/- धिकश्#/ब्याज 2 भू-भाटक/ब्याज रू०-41,77,99,867/- रू०-325,47,89,285/- कु ल पट्टा प्रले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ख/उप पट्टा प्रले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ख में भूखण्डों की उसिल्लत्तिखत प्राटिव-ानों की के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अनुसार समय आपत्तियाँवृधिZ शुल्क Aे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग य आपत्तियाँ होगा। मा० सव|च्च न्य आपत्तियाँाय आपत्तियाँालय आपत्तियाँ में भूखण्डों की य आपत्तियाँोसिजत Writ Petition (Civil) No 940 of 2017 Bikram Chatterji and Others v/s Union of India & Others में भूखण्डों की मा० सव|च्च न्य आपत्तियाँाय आपत्तियाँालय आपत्तियाँ द्वारा टिAनांक 07.11.2022 को पारिरत आAे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श एवं उ(cid:20)र प्रAे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श शासन द्वारा जारी आAे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श टिAनांक 09.06.2020 के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग क्रम में भूखण्डों की जारी काय आपत्तियाँा(cid:25)लय आपत्तियाँ आAे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श संख्य आपत्तियाँा 915 टिAनांक 17.11.2022 के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अनुपालन में भूखण्डों की टिAनांक 01.07.2020 से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग एम०सी०एल०आर० Aरों की के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अनुसार उपरोक्त अन्य तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटीज का विकास ग्रुप गर्ण हैना की गई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ है। अतः इस नोटिटस के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग माध्य आपत्तियाँम से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग आपको सूधिचत टिकय आपत्तियाँा जाता है टिक भूखण्ड के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिवरूZ Aे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग य आपत्तियाँता का भुगतान इस पत्र के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग जारी होने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग की धितशि वसूल कर ली गयी है। स्पोर्ट्सथ से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग 15 टिAन के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अन्Aर करना सुटिनधि{त करें भूखण्डों की । अन्य आपत्तियाँ कोई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ टिवधि-क अड़ की देनदारी है।चन ना होने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग की Aशा में भूखण्डों की य आपत्तियाँटिA आपके कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग द्वारा टिन-ा(cid:25)रिरत अवधि- में भूखण्डों की Aे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग य आपत्तियाँो का भुगतान नौएडा प्राधि-करर्ण है को नहीं किये। टिकय आपत्तियाँा जाता है तो टिनय आपत्तियाँमानुसार आवंटन टिनरस्त करने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग की काय आपत्तियाँ(cid:25)वाही की जाएगी। नोटः- भूटिम प्रधितकर के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग मA में भूखण्डों की 64.7 प्रधितशत अधितरिरक्त अन्य तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटीज का विकास ग्रुप प्रधितकर की गर्ण हैना करते कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हुए पृथक से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग इसकी माँग भे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग जी जा रहा हैं। ह० अपठनीय आपत्तियाँ धिव(cid:24)ेष काया!धि(cid:21)कारी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।/सहायक महाप्रबं(cid:21)क (स्पो योग्यट! धिसटी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।)”

104. The reason given by the NOIDA Authority to extend the undue favour was based upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bikram Chatterji and others vs. Union of India and others7. This reason is thoroughly misplaced and illegal as Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bikram Chaterji (supra) in paragraphs 14, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24 of the judgment dated 7/11/2022 has held as follows:- 7 (2019) 19 SCC 161 58 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. “14. In these proceedings we are principally concerned with the plight of flat holders of Amrapali Group of Companies. In order to see that the projects do not remain stalled and the investment made by all the flat buyers comes out of cloud of uncertainty, certain measures were adopted by this Court in its order dated 23.07.2019. Those measures contemplated restriction on the Noida and Greater Noida Authorities to resume the properties in question, as well as, cancellation of lease deed granted in favour of Amrapali Group of Companies and vesting all the rights in favour of the Court Receiver and NBCC was appointed to complete various projects. These directions were passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances in Amrapali Projects. It was in light of these directions that one of the issues which came up for consideration before the Court related to reduction in rate of interest. The dues payable to Noida or Greater Noida in respect of projects of Amrapali Group of Companies would otherwise have been liable to pay along with interest at certain rates. Since that would have put additional burden on the entire project, it was deemed appropriate to consider reduction in rate of interest. x x x x

17. Around this time a decision was taken by the State Government on 09.06.2020 giving reduction in interest rates generally to all builders pertaining to all projects. However, this court was not aware of the order dated 09.06.2020 when the order was pronounced on 10.06.2020 in the matter reserved earlier. It is true that though it was completely beyond the scope of instant matters to consider the cases of other builders, this Court did to consider the case of builders such as ACE group of companies and the matter was dealt with in its order dated 10.06.2020. However, at that juncture it was not known to this court that huge amount running into more than Rs. 3000 – 4000 crores for Noida and Greater Noida Authorities, would be in issue.

18. As a result of the orders passed by this court the builders are now asking for adjustment of whatever they had paid earlier and in certain cases they are even demanding refund of the amount paid in excess. In every case, the concerned builder had opted for allocation of plot on the basis of brochure which had clearly indicated the rate of interest. The allotment letter and consequential lease deed carried the same intent. Thus, every builder was well aware and had entered into transaction with Noida and Greater Noida Authorities with open eyes. Whatever was the impact on account of that rate of interest must have been subsumed in the price which was arrived at and had to be paid by every flat holder. x x x x

20. If even in normal circumstances, the interference with contractual terms is not easily to be taken resort to, it does not stand to reason that in 59 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. a matter with which this court was not even concerned, the benefit could be extended to the entire body of builders of Noida and Greater Noida. Reference made to a number of stalled projects including some of the projects of the builders who are presently before us, cannot be taken as an indication that the benefits which were to be extended to the flat buyers from Amrapali Group of Companies must also be extended to the flat buyers to the other projects from Noida or Greater Noida. x x x x

23. In conclusion, we must say that this Court erred in granting relief to projects other than Amrapali Group of Companies vide its orders dated 10.06.2020, 19.08.2020 and 25.08.2020.

24. Consequently, the instant applications are allowed and the orders dated 10.6.2020, 19.8.2020 and 25.8.2020 are recalled, as prayed. The Noida and Greater Noida Authorities are directed to calculate the amount due in respect of builders other than Amrapali Group of Companies after taking into consideration the effect of the order dated 09.06.2020 issued by the State Government.” (Emphasis supplied)

105. The Noida Authority was a party in the aforesaid matter. In fact, the officials of Noida Authority were well aware of the judgment dated

07.11.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The benefit of Government Order dated 9.6.2020 was only for the lessees other then group housing and Sports city. This was clarified by the Noida Authority vide its order dated 5.1.2021 wherein it was made clear that the benefit of the Government order dated 9.6.2020 would not be extended to the group housing projects, and for the Sports city projects. Shockingly still, the Noida Authority issued the notice on 27.03.2023 granting benefit of the Government order dated 09.06.2020 to the allottees of the Sports City Projects. This benefit granted to the developer was contrary to the aforesaid Office Order of NOIDA dated 27.03.2023 as well as judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bikram Chatterji (supra). 60 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

106. What is shocking is that Noida Authority itself was before Hon’ble Supreme Court as a party and Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated

07.09.2022 has clarified that benefit of the Government order dated

09.06.2020 would not be applicable on other builders and they will be obliged to pay the contractual dues. The officers of Noida Authority, who were well aware of this judgment as well as their own office order, still wanted to extend the benefit to the petitioners.

107. It is shocking to see that the officers of Noida Authority are working contrary to their own Office Orders and also contrary to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, just to grant undue benefit to the developers/builders. F) NEED FOR LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL

108. Now the question before this Court is whether a company, which gets two sports city allotted in the name of different subsidiary companies; gets lease deed executed in the name of various subsidiary companies, sells them off, makes a huge profit, does not pay the authority the dues, gets the liability of developing the sports facility in one or two company, does not develop it and push the company into insolvency, be liable for the obligations of the subsidiary/sister company? Whether all these companies incorporated for the development of the sports city be treated as a single concern, as they have a common ownership and a common control, their share holdings at the time of allotment were held by the same entity, the same promoters in the most of the members, they had a unified management, common directors, having the same aligned business practices, with operational engagements in collaborative projects that blur the lines between the entities, with interrelated transactions, with 61 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. strategic alignment, with common business strategies, similar marketing strategies, common customer basses, with a coordinated approach to business. With shared business plans, with the common aligned business of the companies, reflects a common control as the promoters and ownership remains the same. Here all the subsidiaries are inextricably inter-linked corporate entities. incorporated by the promoters as a mere cloak or sham and in truth the business was being carried on by same set of people and not by the company as a separate entity.

109. In such cases, this Court can always lift the corporate veil, and see behind as to who is the real beneficiary. In this case, it is evident that all the companies were incorporated and promoted by same three people. Even the shareholding were with them or the companies were closely held by them and they are liable for the acts and omissions of its subsidiary. G) LIABILITY OF THE ORIGINAL ALLOTTEE WITH REGARD TO ITS SUBSIDIARIES ENGLISH LAW

110. As per the English law The basic feature of a company is that, it is a separate legal entity with distinct legal personality. In this fast changing economic world it is inherent that problems with regard to concept of liability of parent company towards subsidiary company would arise.

111. The liability of the parent company towards its subsidiaries were analysed by the House of Lords in the case of Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd.8, which was further approved in Adams v Cape Industries Plc9. 8 9 (1897) AC 22 (1990) Ch 433 62 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

112. The Court discussed the issue of corporate personality in this case and the court gave a greater thrust to exceptions laid down in the Salomon’s case with regard to the liability of parent company. This paved way to the beginning of creation of the concept of group liability. Several terms are used to denote the relationship between a subsidiary company and parent company. The words like holding companies or subsidiaries, dominant influence etc Lifting of corporate veil is the most commonly used concept in cases relating to group liability. It was for the very first time English law dealt with the concept of group liability, though it is not specified in any law.

113. For this purpose the Courts have gone to the extent of creating various exceptions such as sham transactions to avoid liabilities by creating a facade or a sham to distinguish as a separate legal entity. The piercing of the corporate veil can be carried out to identify if the company is a mere facade, or the subsidiary is an agent of the parent company.

114. When a company holds more than 50% shares of a company and has control over the company then it is a subsidiary company. The subsidiary companies could be incorporated for so many reasons, at times they are formed to create a smoke screen for the illegal activities of the parent company, or to conceal the true facts or to perpetuate fraud or for any manipulative circumstances. Whenever the court comes across with such a situation, the usual phenomenon is to lift the corporate veil to decide on the liability.

115. The exception of sham or fraud was developed by the Courts in the following cases :- (I). Gilford Motor Co v. Horne [1933] Ch 935. In Jones v. Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832 . Russell J. refused to recognise the separate 63 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. corporate entity of the company under the circumstances of the case to make the defendant as well as the company liable for the specific performance of the contract. (ii). Smith, Stone & Knight Ltd v Birmingham Corp . [1939] 4 All ER 116 , (iii). DHN Food Distributors Ltd v. London Borough of Tower Hamlets [1976] 1 WLR 852 Lord Denning put forward the need to treat a group of companies as one since in reality it works like a single economic en- tity. Pioneer Concrete Services v.Yelnah Pty Ltd (iv) In the New South Wales case of Pioneer Concrete Services v. Yelnah Pty Ltd [20] Young J. considered the authorities and held that the veil should only be lifted where there was in law or in fact a partnership between the companies, or where there was a sham or façade.

116. The court felt the need to develop the concept of enterprise liability, with piercing the corporate veil, to bring liability to the parent corporation for subsidiary’s action. INDIAN LAW

117. This doctrine was followed in India by the Indian Court in the following cases:-

118. In State of U.P. v. Renusagar Power Co. and Ors.10 the Supreme Court held that it was clear that Hindalco completely controlled its wholly owned subsidiary Renusagar, including its day-to-day affairs. Renusagar did not indicate any independent volition. Thus, the Court was of the opinion that the corporate veil should be lifted and Hindalco and Renusagar should be treated as one concern. Hence, it was held that Renusagar’s power plant was Hindalco’s own source of generation and was liable to duty on that basis. 10 1988 (4) SCC 59 64 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

119. The Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corpn of India v. Escorts Ltd. & Ors.11 had emphasized that the corporate veil should be lifted where the associated companies were inextricably connected and appeared as a single concern/entity, the corporate veil should be lifted. The Apex Court further observed that this was contingent on the relevant statutory provisions, intent, the extent of involvement of public interest, and the effect on parties.

120. The Hon’ble supreme Court in the matter of Vodafone International Holdings BV Vs. Union of India and Another12 {(2012) 6 Supreme Court Cases 613} held as follws:-

259. The U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Bestfoods 524 US 51 (1998) explained that it is a general principle of corporate law and legal systems that a parent corporation is not liable for the acts of its subsidiary, but the Court went on to explain that corporate veil can be pierced and the parent company can be held liable for the conduct of its subsidiary, if the corporal form is misused to accomplish certain wrongful purposes, when the parent company is directly a participant in the wrong complained of. Mere ownership, parental control, management etc. of a subsidiary is not sufficient to pierce the status of their relationship and, to hold parent company liable. In Adams v. Cape Industries Plc. (1991) 1 All ER 929, the Court of Appeal emphasized that it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil where special circumstances exist indicating that it is mere fagade concealing true facts. “

121. Hon’ble Madras High Court in the matter of Small Industries Development Bank of Indian v. Creation Investments Equitas Holdings LLC (in OA 1137 of 2019 decided on 6.10.2020), upheld that the holding company and the subsidiary are distinct entities and that the holding company does not own the subsidiary’s assets. However, in this case, both the holding company and the subsidiary were dissolved to avoid legal ramifications. Not only they were the entities one and the same, they 11 12 (1985) Suppl. 3 SCR 909 (2012) 6 Supreme Court Cases 613 65 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. were, also operated by the same person. The sole purpose of the person, who created such companies, was to defeat the rights of the parties outside the countries. Therefore, the Court held that principles laid down in the Vodafone judgment could not be applied to defeat the rights and encourage fraudulent activities.

122. The question which arises here is when will the Original Allottee/Consortium be held liable for the actions of its subsidiaries?

123. The answer is that although it is a settled legal position that a subsidiary is a separate legal entity and is different from its holding/parent company. However, the holding companies and its subsidiary cannot take a shelter under the legal position that they are two distinct legal entities when, the company is the creature of the group, formed in an attempt to avoid recognition by the eye of law, merely to mask the real entities and to cover the business which is actually being carried out by the same set of people. Then the Court can always lift the corporate veil, and hold the holding company liable for the acts and omissions of its subsidiary.

124. From the above ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court it is evident that a Consortium Member/Original Allottee (parent company) can be held responsible for the wrong done by its subsidiary companies, especially when the same is done, as a part of a sham transaction, just to avoid the liability of the parent company. Here as a part of the greater design all the liability/ responsibility is transferred to a 100% subsidiary company which was never completed and all the profit / cream of the project was subdivided into smaller companies and was, sold off at a very high premium. The entire façade of subsidiary companies were created only to defraud the other stake holders. Hence, it will be not wrong to fasten the liabilities of the subsidiary companies onto the parent company. 66 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. H) CONDUCT OF THE PETITIONERS

125. It is a matter of record that this Court had heard the matter at length on various dates i.e. 15.07.2021, 31.08.2021, 16.10.2023, 30.09.2024,

16.10.2024, 24.10.2024.

126. On 24.10.2024, this Court passed the following order:- “1. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rahul Sahai appears for the petitioner. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh appears for the contesting-respondent and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Mohan Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.

2. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Noida Authority has placed the communication dated 23.10.2024 sent by the Chief Executive Officer, Noida, which is taken on record.

3. Initially a counter affidavit dated 27.07.2023 was filed but seeing the communication dated 23.10.2024 further supplementary counter affidavit may be filed by the Noida Authority as well as the State Government. 4. Let the counsel for the Noida Authority as well as the State Government file response in the matter on or before the next date fixed.

5. On the joint request made by the parties, list this matter on 19.11.2024 at 2 PM along with connected matter.”

127. In response to the aforesaid, Noida Authority in its affidavit dated

18.11.2024, filed before the Court on 26.11.2024, has stated that PAC has cleared the objections raised by CAG on Sports City SC-02, Sector-150, NOIDA in the PAC meeting held on 29.08.2024. The relevant paras of the affidavit are as follows:- “3. That it is pertinent to mention here that the P.A.C. has cleared the objections raised by C.A.G. on Sports City SC-02, Sector-150, NOIDA, in the P.A.C. meeting held on 29.08.2024.

4. That the petitioner have submitted a revised Master Plan for the Sports City SC-02, Sector-150, Noida District-Gautam Budh Nagar 67 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. the Authority will examine the same once the Board clears the matter after the directions received by the State Government.

5. That the Authority placed the matter of Sports City SC-02, Sector- 150 before the 215th Board Meeting held on 26.10.2024.

6. That the matter was taken up for consideration by the Board. It was decided by the Board that as the matter pertains to the direction given by the P.A.C. the same can only be considered after directions are received from the State Government in the light of P.A.C. directions.”

128. On the other hand, State in its affidavit dated 19.11.2024, filed before the Court on 26.11.2024, has opposed the contention made by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. It has been clearly stated therein that in the present matter, it has been indicated that there was irregular allotment of the plot for Sports City, and irregular sub- division and also the Sports facilities were not developed in the Sports City till date. In the aforesaid perspectives, a comprehensive enquiry in the matter is required, which is being done. After enquiry/examination of the present matter, the proceeding/direction would be apprised to NOIDA Authority. The relevant para of the affidavit are as follows:- “4. That in this regard, it is respectfully apprised to the Hon’ble Court that the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Noida vide letter dated 14.11.2024 informed that in the 215th Board Meeting dated 26th October, 2024, the Proposal for plot number SC-02, Sector-150 was presented for perusal and necessary guidelines.

5. That the Sanchalak Mandal directed that after obtaining necessary guidelines and direction from the State Government the Proposal should be presented.

6. That in pursuance of the aforesaid direction of the Board, and with regard to the aforesaid letter of the Noida Authority dated 14.11.2024 and in compliance of the Hon’ble High Court order dated 24.10.2024 passed in the present writ petition No.15604 of 2021, the request has been made to the State Government for necessary direction to the concerned for undertaking desired steps/proceedings.

7. That it is pertinent to mention that in the present matter it has been indicated that there was irregular allotment of the plot for Sports City, 68 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. and irregular Sub-Division and also the Sports Facilities were not developed in the Sports City till the date. In the aforesaid perspectives, a comprehensive enquiry in the matter is required, which is being done. After enquiry/examination of the present matter the proceeding/direction would be apprised to Noida Authority.”

129. Thereafter, the matter was again heard on 19.11.2024, 21.11.2024,

25.11.2024 along with the other petitions.

130. After hearing both the parties, the judgment was reserved on

26.11.2024. The order dated 26.11.2024 is quoted hereunder:- “1. Heard Sri Syed Fahim Ahmed, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mohan Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh and Ms. Anjali Gokhlani, learned counsel for respondent -NOIDA.

2. Short counter affidavit filed by learned Standing Counsel and counter affidavit filed by Sri K.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent-NOIDA are taken on record.

3. Judgment reserved.”

131. Thereafter, a mention was made by learned counsels for the petitioners that certain aspects have not been argued by them and they want to address the same. Though the judgment was already reserved, but on their request, vide order dated 28.11.2024 the matter was again fixed for further hearing on 02.12.2024.

132. On the very next date, Sri Dhruv Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate, appeared and pressed an application for withdrawal of writ petition. The relief sought in the withdrawal application is quoted hereunder:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and permit the petitioner to withdraw the present writ petition at this stage. Otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. And/Or pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 69 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

133. The conduct of the petitioners is not appreciated at all. They have been playing fraud in the allotment, development of sports city. Emboldened with their success in defrauding Noida Authority, banks, homebuyers, now they have tried to play fraud on the Court as well. If the petitioners wanted to withdraw the petitions, they could have done it earlier in time, but after the judgment was reserved, this trick was played actually to avoid the judgment. I) WITHDRAWAL OF WRIT PETITIONS

134. Although, the petitioners have the right to withdraw their writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. This right is generally recognized to uphold the autonomy of the petitioners in legal proceedings.

135. While the petitioners can request withdrawal, the court has the discretion to allow or reject the withdrawal depending on the circumstances. If the withdrawal is sought after the court has taken significant steps in the case, the court may consider the implications before granting permission.

136. In sum and substance, a petitioner can withdraw a writ petition under Article 226, and the courts generally respect this right. However, the withdrawal is subject to the court's discretion, especially regarding any potential implications for justice or public interest. SCOPE OF JUDICIAL INTERVENTION

137. The crucial question, however, is whether such commercial contracts, which may stem from a Government Policy decision of Noida and the state government, are insulated from judicial review. 70 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

138. This issue is no longer res integra and there is no absolute bar, even in matters concerning contracts, on the maintainability of writ petitions. In such cases, the discretion lies with the Court as held in Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India13 which summarised the legal position on judicial review of contracts entered into by public authorities with private parties. Judicial review, being a dynamic process as opposed to static, has experienced a significant shift in terms of the degree of judicial interference in contractual disputes, especially when one of the parties involved is the State or its instrumentalities. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP © 33403 of 2016 (Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd Vs. Federation of Noida Residents Welfare Association & Ors.)14.

139. This is because when contractual power is exercised for public purposes, the State and its instrumentalities bear the responsibility to act fairly, without arbitrariness or caprice (Silpi Constructions Contractors Vs Union of India15). In such situations, courts are justified in intervening through judicial review to determine whether the State has adhered to the principles embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which mandates fairness and non-arbitrariness in State actions. The involvement of a public authority necessitates cognizance to ensure that the scheme/ Agreement upholds constitutional principles. In such scenarios, it becomes the solemn duty of the judiciary, entrusted under the Constitution as an independent arbiter, to intervene and protect the interests of the public at large.

140. Further, it is crucial to recognise that when a contract involving a State instrumentality like NOIDA, significantly impacting the public, the 13 14 15

The lessee shall be wholly and solely responsible for the implementation of the Project and also ensuring the quality of development/constructions, subsequent operations and maintenance of the facilities and services, till such time as the alternate agency for such work is identified and legally appointed by the lessee after prior written approval of NOIDA. The lessee shall execute an Indemnity bond Indemnifying the NOIDA against all disputes arising out of: a) The non-completion of the project. b) The quality of development, construction, operations and maintenance. c) Any legal dispute arising out of allotment, lease and/or sub-lease to the final purchaser(s). GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS * Composite Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.0(subject to approval of state government) on the total gross area of the allotted land will be permissible, which is fungible/transferable in different land use components as prescribed. 10 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. * The obligations of the developer with respect to the development of sports, institutional and other facilities are prescribed in Annexure 2 of this document. Subject to provision of Master Plan and regulation of NOIDA: The lessee shall be entitled to sub-lease the sports, other facilities and institutional activity, with prior approval of NOIDA/Lessor. * Commercial and residential area can be sub-leased without any approvals on tripartite agreement basis. * The transfer of whole plot and sub-lease of built up space shall be governed by the transfer policy prevailing at the time of such transfer or sub-lease of built up space. * Without obtaining the completion certificate the lessee shall have the right to sub-divide the allotted plot into suitable smaller plot as per the planning norms of the NOIDA only for the area available for residential and commercial use and to transfer the same to the interested parties, if any, with the prior approval of the NOIDA on payment of transfer charges at the rate prevailing on the date of transfer. However, the area of each of such sub-divided plot should not be less than 8,000 sq. mtrs. *After the written approval of the Lessor/NOIDA Authority, the lessee can implement/develop the project through its multiple subsidiary companies in which the allottee/lessee company shall have minimum 90% equity share holdings (such subsidiaries are exempted from stamp duty for transaction between parent company and subsidiary company under the provisions of Indian Stamp Act as per the State Government notification). * For the first transfer of land/built-up area through sub-lease no additional charges or transfer charges shall be payable by lessee to NOIDA or any Authority. * Sub lease of land/built-up area shall be allowed on the basis of approved layout and building plans by NOIDA. OTHER CLAUSES

1. The Authority/Lessor reserves the right to make such additions/alterations or modifications in the terms and conditions of allotment/lease deed/sub lease deed from time to time, as may be considered just and expedient.

2. In case of any clarification or interpretation regarding these terms and conditions, the decision of the NOIDA shall be final and binding.

7. The NOIDA will monitor the implementation of the project. Applicants who do not have a firm commitment to implement the project within the time limits prescribed are advised not to avail the allotment.

11. All arrears due to the Lessor/Lessee(s) would be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. 11 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

12. The NOIDA in larger public interest may take back the possession of the land/building by paying a reasonable(s) compensation. The decision in this regard shall be final and binding on the lessee/sub-lessee(s). (Emphasis supplied)

9. The respondent no.2-NOIDA invited applications for allotment of Sports City on Plot No.SC-02 in Sector-150, NOIDA. As per the brochure, a Consortium was also allowed to participate. In terms of the Brochure a Consortium of M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt Ltd was constituted as a lead member along with following six companies who applied for allotment of this plot on 23.06.2014:- (i) M/s Three C Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (ii) M/s Three C Infra Square Pvt. Ltd. (iii) M/s Three C Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (iv) M/s Elate Realtor Pvt. Ltd. (v) M/s Three C Crest Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & (vi) M/s Allure Developers Pvt. Ltd.

10. The lead member M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt Ltd. was a subsidiary company of M/s Three C Universal Developers Pvt. Ltd. The application was made on the qualification of M/s Three C Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., which was also one of its group company. Surprisingly, Sports City 01/78-79 was also allotted to the same group of companies on the basis of the qualification of the same company i.e. M/s Three C Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.

11. The tenders were evaluated and after finding the bid of the Consortium most compliant (at a rate of Rs 19,400/- per sqm), the project was allotted to the Consortium and allotment letter was issued on various dates, as and when the possession of the land could be handed over to the allotee. 12 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

12. In the name of Lead Member of the Consortium namely, M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner company) for Plot No.SC-02, Sector-150, NOIDA. The total premium for the plot in the year 2014 was Rs.2,328,00,00,000/- (Rupees 2,328 crores). The allotment-cum- reservation letter was issued to the lead member on 10.9.2014, asking the allottee to pay 20% of the premium, and the balance 80 % was to be paid in 16 half yearly instalments (starting from 10.3.2015 and ending on

10.9.2022).

13. After payment of the upfront 20% of the premium, a formal letter was issued on 07.10.2014 and thereafter, Noida Authority executed various lease deeds and allotted a total area of 11,98,370.92 sq meters of land. The details of which are as follows:- “The details of lease deeds executed is as follows:- S.No. Party Name and Address Area (Sqm) Date of Execution of Lease Deed

9. M/s Lotus Greens Constructions Pvt. Ltd.-SC- 6,40,000.00

19.12.2014 01/A, Sector-150, Noida M/s Allure Developers Pvt. Ltd.- 60,000.00

19.12.2014 SC-02/C,Sector-150, Noida M/s Elate Realtors Pvt. Ltd.-SC-02/B, Sector- 1,00,000.00

19.12.2014 150, Noida M/s Crest Promoters Private Limited, SC-02/F, 58,064.71

07.04.2015 Sector-150, Noida M/s Crest Promoters Private Limited, SC-02/G, 60,000.54

07.04.2015 Sector-150, Noida M/s Three C Buildcon Private Limited, SC-02/ 32,519.22

07.04.2015 E, Sector-150, Noida M/s Three C Infra Square Private Limited, SC

40186.45

07.04.2015 02/D, Sector-150, Noida M/s Lotus Greens Constructions Pvt. Ltd. SC- 7,600.00

11.05.2015 01/A, Sector-150, Noida M/s Lotus Greens Constructions Pvt. Ltd.-SC- 72,000.00

20.11.2015 01/H and I, Sector-150, Noida 13 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

10. M/s Lotus Greens Constructions Pvt. Ltd.-SC- 72,000.00

20.11.2015 01/J and J, Sector-150, Noida

11. Area not registered yet 56,000.00 Not Applicable Total Area 11,98,370.92

14. On 01.3.2016, NOIDA allotted 1,53,790 sqm of extra land to the petitioners.

15. It is claimed by the petitioners that the possession of contiguous land has not been given to them till date. Khasra Nos. 86, 471, 94, 95, 109, 110, 171, 172, 181, 182, 187, 192, 200, 201, 208, 209, 211, 212, 218, 219, 234, 233 in Village Momnathal fall under the Chak Marg, Drain, Govt. Land and Main Drain, which were still not acquired by Noida Authority spreading in between the 10,07,000.00 sqm land parcel.

16. On 6.9.2017 Noida issued a letter to the allottee for payment of additional compensation for the farmers whose land has been acquired.

17. Inspite of rescheduling of the time frame the allottee failed to meet the first Mile stone. So a notice was issued by the Noida on 4.2.2020 but nothing happened.

18. The petitioner company claims that there were some problem in actual physical possession of the entire land, hence, the petitioner applied for benefit of zero period for an area 8,07,600 sqm from the date of execution of lease deed till 30.06.2015. The petitioner again moved an application dated 18.12.2015/ 28.12.2015 seeking benefit of zero period for an area 10,07,600 sqm. Noida Authority on 12.09.2016 granted benefit of zero period for an area measuring 9,94,218 sqm. In this letter, it was mentioned that benefit of zero period will not be extended further. The petitioner company availed the benefit of this letter dated 12.09.2016 and did not challenge the same. 14 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

19. The lead member of the Consortium filed a consolidated map for the development of the sports city project, which was approved.

20. On the request of the allottees (members of the consortium) their allotted land was subdivided into various companies, which they claimed, were 100% subsidiary of the allottee companies.

21. Subsequently, the allottee subsidiary Companies further made request to the Noida authority to further subdivide their plots in the name of companies, which were 100% subsidiaries of the allottee companies. By this sub-division, the original seven companies by now had become 24 companies.

22. The possession of 8,07,600 sqm. of land was handed over on

26.12.2014. Though the Sports City Scheme-02 in Sector 150 was on an area of 12,00,000 sqm, but the Noida authority allotted further 1,13,375 sqm of land to the allottee. After the allotment of this additional land, the allottee filed a revised master layout for approval, which was sanctioned by the Noida authority on 17.1.2017 extending the timeline period of various milestones for completion of the project. The extended time line was as follows:- Mile stone Start date Completion date 15% development of recreational facilities in three years

1.10.2016

30.09.2019 100% development of recreational facilities in five years

1.10.2016

30.09.2021. 100% development of residential & Commercial in seven years

1.10.2016

30.09.2023.

23. An integrated map for development of Sports City-02 in Sector 150 was approved on 17.01.2017 (the validity of the plan was five years) wherein each Member of Consortium took upon themselves the 15 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. obligation of completing their part of residential/commercial and the sports facility in the Sports City. The approved map showing obligations of each company were as follows:- PLOT NO.SC-02, SECTOR-150, NOIDA (U.P.) Company S. No. PLOT NO. Plot company FAR To be developed company In Sqm In Sqm PROPOSED GROUND COVERAGE (SQM.) OPEN/ GREEN (IN SQ.M.) (Perc) % (Perc) % Residentia l (IN SQM) (A) Commer (IN SQM) (B) (Perc ) % Sports (IN SQM) (C) (Perc ) % Total (In Sqm) (E=A+B+ C) (Perc) %

9. M/s Lotus Greens Constructions Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A, SEC-150 M/s Land Kart Builders Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A1, SEC-150 M/s Build Wall Builders Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A2, SEC-150 M/s Wiztown Planners Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A3, SEC-150 M/s Gray Developers Pvt. Ltd. Wall SC-02/A4, SEC-150 Gray Brick M/s Developers Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A5, SEC-150 Brick Town M/s Developers Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A6, SEC-150 M/s Strongbiz Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A7, SEC-150 M/s Wishland Buildzone Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A8, SEC-150

10. M/s Wondrous Buildmart Pvt. Ltd.

11. M/s Escarpment Buildcraft Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/A9, SEC-150 SC-02/A10, SEC-150

12. M/s Elate Realtors Pvt. Ltd.

13. M/s Allure Developers Pvt. Ltd.

14. M/s Samridhi Square Pvt. Ltd. Infra

15. M/s Samridhi Buildmart Pvt. Ltd.

16. M/s Crest Promoters Pvt. Ltd.

17. M/s Crest Promoters Pvt. Ltd.

18. M/s Brick Developers Pvt. Ltd. Rise

19. M/s Fest Developers Pvt. Ltd. Homes

20. M/s Three C Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

21. M/s Allure Developers Pvt. Ltd.

22. M/s Reverent Developers Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/B, SEC-150 SC-02/C, SEC-150 SC-02/D, SEC-150 SC-02/E, SEC-150 SC-02/F, SEC-150 SC-02/G, SEC-150 SC-02/HI, SEC-150 SC-02/JK, SEC-150 SC-02/L, SEC-150 SC-02/C1, SEC-150 SC-02/M, SEC-150

134441.00

166857.48

94108.70

70.00

25642.30

19.07

190.00

0.14

14500.00 10.79 40332.30

30.00

83970.00

195796.00

58779.00

70.00

24255.00

28.89

436.00

0.52

500.00

0.60

25191.00

30.00

653331.00

131643.92

45731.70

70.00

19157.30

29.32

180.00

0.28

262.00

0.40

19599.30

30..00

27185.00

31326.09

18700.05

68.79

0.00

0.00

2212.01

8.14

6272.94

23.08 8484.95

31.21

46846.00

115406.36

32792.20

70.00

0.00

0.00

185.73

0.40

13868.08 29.60 14053.80

30.00

8080.00

36428.53

3232.00

40.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

4848.00

60.00 4848.00

60.00

37915.00

105853.08

26540.50

70.00

11244.50

29.66

130.00

0.34

0.00

0.00

11374.50

30.00

50790.00

99818.81

35553.00

70.00

15057.00

29.65

180.00

0.35

0.00

0.00

15237.00

30.00

50560.00

110323.36

35392.00

70.00

14944.00

29.56

224.00

0.44

0.00

0.00

151.68.00

30.00

80857.00

138020.50

56599.90

70.00

23695.10

29.30

100.00

0.12

462.00

0.57

24257.10

30.00

108135.00

162309.32

78118.50

72.24

29826.50

27.58

190.00

0.18

0.00

0.00

30016.50

27.76

100000.00

200000.00

70000.00

70.00

29500.00

29.50

500.00

0.50

0.00

0.00

30000.00

30.00

60000.00

120000.00

42000.00

70.00

17400.00

29.00

300.00

0.50

300.00

0.00

18000.00

30.00

40186.45

80372.90

28130.52

70.00

11855.00

29.50

200.93

0.50

0.00

0.00

12055.94

30.00

32519.22

65038.44

22763.45

70.00

9593.17

29.50

162.60

0.50

0.00

0.00

9755.77

30.00

58064.71

116129.42

40645.30

70.00

17129.09

29.50

290.32

0.50

0.00

0.00

17419.41

30.00

60000.54

120001.08

42000.38

70.00

17700.16

29.50

300.00

0.50

0.00

0.00

18000.16

30.00

72000.00

144000.00

50400.00

70.00

21240.00

29.50

360.00

0.50

0.00

0.00

21600.00

30.00

72000.00

195219.39

50400.00

70.00

21420.00

29.75

180.00

0.25

0.00

0.00

21600.00

30.00

42658.00

85316.00

29860.60

70.00

12584.11

29.50

213.29

0.50

0.00

0.00

12797.40

30.00

22769.00

45538.00

15938.30

70.00

6716.86

29.50

113.85

0.50

0.00

0.00

6830.70

30.00

37231.00

117679.14

26391.15

70.88

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

10839.85 29.12 10839.85

29.12

23. M/s Vella Stone SC-02/N,

20863.00

41726.00

14604.10

70.00

6258.90

30.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

6258.90

30.00 16 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. SEC-150

24. M/s Vicetech Developers Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/P, SEC-150

17344.00

34688.00

12140.80

70.00

5203.20

30.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

5203.20

30.00 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

1329745.92

2659491.84

930822.14 70.00

340422.18 25.60

6648.73

0.50

51852.87 3.90

398923.78 30.00 PERMISSIBLE DEVELOPMENT

1329745.92

2659491.84

930822.14 70.00

392275.05 29.50

6648.73

0.50

398923.78 30.00

24. The petitioner claimed that NOIDA Authority had not executed lease deed in respect of sub-divided plots and for this reason, they were unable to commence construction and development work on their respective plots.

25. The petitioner again sought benefit of extension of zero period on the ground of encroachment by farmers and inability of NOIDA Authority to provide encumbrance free land. This request was declined by NOIDA Authority on 25.02.2020.

26. Lead Member of the Consortium (petitioner company) as well as the Relevant Members did not develop the Sports City as well as residential apartments within time as prescribed in the scheme. Thereafter, the petitioner company (Lead Member of the Consortium) moved an application on 05.12.2022 for approval of the revised Master Plan. However, in this revised plan, area of Golf Course was unilaterally reduced. CAG REPORT

27. It transpires that there was some bungling/scam in formulating the scheme of the Sports City and its allotment and development. An audit was carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India 2, who tabled the report in September, 2020, which shows that there was a huge scam, which costed Noida Authority and the State Government a loss of 2 CAG 17 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. almost 9,000/- crore ₹9,000/- crore . The relevant portion of report submitted by CAG is quoted hereinbelow:- सी०ए०जी० द्वारा उठाई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ गई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ मुख्य आपत्तियाँआपत्ति(cid:20)य आपत्तियाँाँ

11. स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटी में भूखण्डों की भूखण्डों की की pricing 9000 करोड का नुकसान हुआ। त्रुटिटपूर्ण है(cid:25) है, सिजसके कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग कारर्ण है प्राधि-करर्ण है को लगभग रू सिजसके कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग फलस्वरूप स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर का क्षे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग त्रफल 36 ब्रोशर में भूखण्डों की मात्र आवासीय आपत्तियाँ तथा व्य आपत्तियाँवसाधिय आपत्तियाँक प्रय आपत्तियाँोजन हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु अंटिकत क्षे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग त्रफल को उप टिवभासिजत टिकय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग जाने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग का प्राटिव-ान था, ले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिकन स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु अंटिकत क्षे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग त्रफल को भी उप-टिवभासिजत कर टिAय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा, भागों की में भूखण्डों की बांटा टिAय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा है। टे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग क्नीकल क्वालीटिफके कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग शन, टन(cid:25) ब्रोशर में भूखण्डों की उल्ले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग त्तिखत शतE के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अनुसार प्राप्त विड्स की स्क्रीनिंग टिवड्स की स्क्रीनिंनग- ओवर ने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टवथ(cid:25) आटिA को नजर अन्Aाज करते कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हुए स्पोट(cid:25) सिसटीज के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग भूखण्डों की का आवंटन टिकय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा। लीड मे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग म्बर सिजसका कनसोर्शिशय आपत्तियाँम में भूखण्डों की टिहस्सा सबसे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अधि-क था, गय आपत्तियाँा। इस प्रकार आवंटन नही थे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग । टिव(cid:20) टिवभाग द्वारा उप टिवभासिजत भूखण्डों की को अलग आवंटी मानते कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हुए उसका अलग पे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग में भूखण्डों की ट प्लान जारी टिकय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा। माकQ इवे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग न्र्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स आय आपत्तियाँोसिजत करने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग त्तिलए स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिफल्ड में भूखण्डों की specialized agency स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज का टिनय आपत्तियाँोजन टिकय आपत्तियाँा जाना था, गई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ। ब्रोशर में भूखण्डों की स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) गधितटिवधि-य आपत्तियाँों की हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु specification उप टिवभासिजत भूखण्डों की को Aूसरी Entity त्तिलए गये, को लगभग रू० 295.70 को स्थानान्तरिरत करने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग पूव(cid:25) ट्रान्सफर चाज(cid:25) नहीं किये। सिजसके कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग कारर्ण है स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटी भूखण्ड सं० एस०सी०-01, सैक्टर-78/79 में भूखण्डों की प्राधि-करर्ण है ले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिकन specialized agencies टिन-ा(cid:25)रिरत नहीं किये। टिकय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग । ऐसे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिवकासकता(cid:25)ओ को कर टिAय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा, वह कन्सोर्शिशय आपत्तियाँम में भूखण्डों की बाहर हो जो टिव(cid:20)ीय आपत्तियाँ दृटिO सो योग्ययो योग्यग्य की मAA से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग की मAA नही ली करोड का नुकसान हुआ है। इस प्रकार स्पोट(cid:25) सिसटी भूखण्ड सं० एस०सी००-02, सैक्टर-150 में भूखण्डों की प्राधि-करर्ण है को लगभग

166.50 करोड का नुकसान हुआ है। खे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग लकूA सुटिव-ाओंके कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिवकसिसत होने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग पूव(cid:25) ही 02 कर टिAय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग गय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग । परिरय आपत्तियाँोजनाओंमें भूखण्डों की अधि-भोग प्रमार्ण है पत्र जारी खे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग लकूA सुटिव-ाओंका टिवकास होने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग पूव(cid:25) ही इन सुटिव-ाओं हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु अनुमन्य आपत्तियाँ एफ०ए०आर० को ग्रुप हाउसिंसग सोसाइटीज में भूखण्डों की ट्रांसफर कर टिAय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा। स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज का टिवकास ग्रुप हाउसिंसग य आपत्तियाँोजनाओं की तरह टिकय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा है, सिजसमें भूखण्डों की उप टिवभासिजत भूखण्डों की के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग मध्य आपत्तियाँ खे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ल सुटिव-ाएं प्रस्ताटिवत की गय आपत्तियाँी है। खे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ल सुटिव-ाओं को वरीय आपत्तियाँता प्रAान नही की गई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ है। लीजरे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग न्ट की कम रिरकवरी की गय आपत्तियाँी, सिजससे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग प्राधि-करर्ण है को रू ०64.31 करोड की हाटिन हुई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ।

28. The report given by the CAG was shocking and revealed the scam, it mentions as to how the Noida Authority and the State Government has suffered a loss amounting to Rs.9,000/- crore, as Noida Authority has 18 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. done wrong pricing of the land marked for Sports City. As per the brochure only residential and commercial plots could have been divided but the Noida Authority sub-divided the entire plots, which were earmarked for Sports City as well. Bids of the allottee were not screened and the turnover/qualification of the candidates were also not considered before allotting the plot. The Lead Member having the highest share was ousted from the project completely and thereafter, the allotment was done to various other companies, which individually could not have qualified in the financial bid evaluation. By adopting such dubious methodology, the Noida Authority had allotted the plots to those, who were not even entitled to apply individually. The Noida Authority did not even bother to collect the instalment dues and no effort was ever made by them giving an undue and illegal advantage to the allottees. The finance department has issued a fresh payment plan considering each allottee company as a fresh allottee. The transfer charges for second and third transfer were not even collected. In some cases, occupancy certificate has been issued though sports facilities were not developed. The lease rent was also not recovered.

29. After the report of CAG, the matter was eventually referred to the Public Accounts Committee3, where the proceedings are still going on. BOARD MEETING OF NOIDA AUTHORITY

30. As a knee jerk reaction to the CAG Audit, NOIDA had its Board meeting on 18.01.2021 (201st Board Meeting) in which it was resolved that in order to complete the sports facilities in the Sports City, a Committee should be formed, which would look into the situation and put 3 PAC 19 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. forth a report in the next Board meeting, and stayed any further steps to be taken in the Sports City including revalidation of the maps.

31. The next Board’s meeting was held on 25.06.2021, wherein it was resolved as under:- आटिA की अनुमधित प्रAान की जाय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग । उनसे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग समझौता कर अ-ूरे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग रोड ने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टवक(cid:25) को पूर्ण है(cid:25) कराय आपत्तियाँा य आपत्तियाँह भी उल्ले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग खनीय आपत्तियाँ है टिक प्राधि-करर्ण है के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग पत्र सं० नौएड से अधिक की धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।ा/ सी०ए०जी० की रिरपोट(cid:25) में भूखण्डों की परिरलधिक्षत आपत्ति(cid:20)य आपत्तियाँों की के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग क्रम में भूखण्डों की स्पोट(cid:25) सिसटी परिरय आपत्तियाँोजना को भवन मानधिचत्र स्वीकृधित संशोधि-त मानधिचत्र स्वीकृधित समय आपत्तियाँवृधिZ रिरवे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग त्तिलडे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग शनऑफ टिबल्डिंल्डग नौएडा क्षे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग त्र में भूखण्डों की स्थिस्थत स्पोट(cid:25) सिसटी परिरय आपत्तियाँोजनाओं में भूखण्डों की अन्तराO्रीय आपत्तियाँ स्तर की खे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग लकूA कुछ लैण्ड पार्सल का कब्जा नही दिया गया है। कब्जा दिलवाया जाये। लैण्ड पास(cid:25)ल का कब्जा नही टिAय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा है। कब्जा टिAलवाय आपत्तियाँाजाय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग । जहां टिकसानों की के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग साथ टिववाA है, करो योग्यड से अधिक की धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।सेअधि(cid:21)ककी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।(cid:21)नराधि(cid:24)व्ययकी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।जाचुकी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।है। इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर पररू०100 उनके कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग द्वारा स्पोस्र्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटी के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग प्लॉट को Further sub-divide न ही टिकय आपत्तियाँा “i. ii. जाय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग गा। iii. प्लान, iv. v. जाय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग । vi. स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सुटिव-ाएं टिवकसिसत टिकय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग जाने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु समय आपत्तियाँसारर्ण हैी Aी गय आपत्तियाँी। 13. सटिमधित द्वारा चारों की स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग स्थल के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग फोटोग्राफ्स भी प्राप्त विड्स की स्क्रीनिंग टिकय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग गय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग । चारों की स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग फोटोग्राफ्स रिरपोट(cid:25) के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग साथ संलग्न है। फोटोग्राफ्स का अवलोकन करने से है। फोटोग्राफ्स का अवलोकन करने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग स्पO है टिक स्थल पर ग्रुप हाउसिंसग के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टॉवर टिवद्यमान है त्तिलके कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग न अन्तरा(cid:25)O्रीय आपत्तियाँ स्तर की खे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ल सुटिव-ाएँ नगन्य आपत्तियाँ है। स्पो योग्यट !सिसटी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।/2020/940, टिAनांक 14. 16.06.2021 द्वारा अपर मुख्य आपत्तियाँ सधिचव अवस्थापना एंव औद्योटिगक टिवकास टिवभाग, उ०प्र० शासन को नोएडा में भूखण्डों की स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज परिरय आपत्तियाँोजना के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिवकास एंव टिक्रय आपत्तियाँान्वय आपत्तियाँन में भूखण्डों की आ रही बा-ाओंका उल्ले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ख करते कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हुए शासन से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग उधिचत माग(cid:25)- Aश(cid:25)न प्रAान टिकय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग जाने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग का अनुरो- टिकय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा है। इस पत्र में भूखण्डों की टिनम्न टिबन्Aुओंपर टिनAeश मांगे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग गय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हैः- a. आगे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग कैसे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग बढाय आपत्तियाँा जाय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग । b. सुटिव-ाओंका टिवकास टिकस प्रकार टिकय आपत्तियाँा जाय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग । c. अधि(cid:21)भो योग्यग प्रमाण प रमाण d. को इस य आपत्तियाँोजना के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अन्तग(cid:25)त भूटिम सबलीज पर Aे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग Aी गय आपत्तियाँी है तथा स्थल पर इन टिवकासकता(cid:25)ओंद्वारा टिवकास एंव टिनमा(cid:25)र्ण है काय आपत्तियाँ(cid:25) प्रारम्भ कर टिAय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग गय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग है। इन टिवकासकता(cid:25)ओं द्वारा तृतीय आपत्तियाँ पक्ष के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अधि-कारी भी सृसिजत टिकय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग जा चुके कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग है एंव फ्लैट क्रे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ताओं से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग -नराशि वसूल कर ली गयी है। स्पोर्ट्सश वसूल कर ली गय आपत्तियाँी है। स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) फे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग त्तिलटीज के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिवकास के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अभाव में भूखण्डों की अधि-भोग प्रमार्ण है पत्र जारी न होने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग की स्थिस्थधित में भूखण्डों की व भूखण्डों की पर अत्य आपत्तियाँधि-क देय#ाओं के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग कारर्ण है क्रे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ताओं के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग पक्ष में भूखण्डों की उप पट्टा प्रले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ख टिनष्पाAन की काय आपत्तियाँ(cid:25)वाही नही हो पा रही है। स्थल टिनरीक्षर्ण है सी०ए०जी० की आपत्ति(cid:20) तथा स्पोट(cid:25) सिसटी से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग सम्बस्थिन्-त अशि वसूल कर ली गयी है। स्पोर्ट्सभले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग खों की का अवलोकन करने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग उपरांत सटिमधित का य आपत्तियाँह मंतव्य आपत्तियाँ है टिक टिनम्न कारर्ण हैों की से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग नौएडा में भूखण्डों की टिवकसिसत हुई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग सम्बन्- में भूखण्डों की शासन स्तर से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिAशा- टिनAeश प्राप्त विड्स की स्क्रीनिंग टिकय आपत्तियाँा जाना उधिचत होगाः- 1. सी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।.ए.जी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।. द्वारा नौएडा में भूखण्डों की टिवकसिसत हुई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग संबं- में भूखण्डों की गम्भीर आपत्ति(cid:20)य आपत्तियाँों की जो य आपत्तियाँोजना की धिडजाई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँन, टिबडिंडग, प्राई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँसिंसग, मानधिचत्र स्वीकृधित, टिक्रय आपत्तियाँान्वय आपत्तियाँन, उठाई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ गय आपत्तियाँी है, आटिA के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग संबं- में भूखण्डों की है। सी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।.ए. जी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।. द्वारा अपनी प्रारस्थिम्भक रिरपोट(cid:25) शासन को प्रे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिoत कर Aी गय आपत्तियाँी है। 2. टिन-ा(cid:25)रिरत समय आपत्तियाँ समाप्त विड्स की स्क्रीनिंग हो चुका है, टिवकास नगण्य/बहु# 3. का ही सबधिडवीजन टिकय आपत्तियाँा जाय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ग प्रमाण ा, भूटिम का सबधिडवीजन भी कर टिAय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा है। सभी स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज में भूखण्डों की ब्रोशर की शतE में भूखण्डों की खे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग लकूA सुटिव-ाएं टिवकसिसत टिकय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग जाने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु ले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिकन चारों की स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज में भूखण्डों की खे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग लकूA सुटिव-ाओं का ब्रोशर में भूखण्डों की य आपत्तियाँह उल्ले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग त्तिखत था टिक के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग वलआवासीय आपत्तियाँ एंव व्य आपत्तियाँवसाधिय आपत्तियाँक प्रय आपत्तियाँोजन हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तुआरधिक्षत भूटिम ले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिकन तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज में भूखण्डों की गोल्फ कोस(cid:25) हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु प्रस्ताटिवत स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) फे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग त्तिलटीज के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिवकास के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अभाव में भूखण्डों की भूखण्डों की के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग मानधिचत्र स्वी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।कृधि#/ पुन!वैधि(cid:21)करण/ पत्र की काय आपत्तियाँ(cid:25)वाही टिकस प्रकार की जाय आपत्तियाँें भूखण्डों की । छ लैण्ड पार्सल का कब्जा नही दिया गया है। कब्जा दिलवाया जाये।ोटे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग स्पोट(cid:25) सिसटी के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिवकासकता(cid:25)ओं द्वारा कई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ छ लैण्ड पार्सल का कब्जा नही दिया गया है। कब्जा दिलवाया जाये।ोटे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग - धिवकासक#ा!ओं कम हुआ है। 20 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

4. सैक्टर-152 स्थिस्थत स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटी के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अधितरिरक्त अन्य तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटीज का विकास ग्रुप अन्य आपत्तियाँ तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज का टिवकास ग्रुप हाउसिंसग परिरय आपत्तियाँोजनाओं की भांधित हुआ है। ग्रुप हाउसिंसग य आपत्तियाँोजनाओं में भूखण्डों की भी स्वीनिंमग पूल, बैंडटिमन्टन कोट(cid:25), टे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिनस कोट(cid:25) आटिA का प्राटिव-ान टिकय आपत्तियाँा जाता है। इन तीनों की स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज में भूखण्डों की भी उक्त अन्य तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटीज का विकास ग्रुप श्रे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग र्ण हैी की कई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ सुटिव-ाएं संबंधि-त सबसिसधिडएरी द्वारा अपनी य आपत्तियाँोजनाओं में भूखण्डों की की गय आपत्तियाँी है, सिजनका उपय आपत्तियाँोग के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग वल उस य आपत्तियाँोजना में भूखण्डों की रहने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग वाले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिनवासिसय आपत्तियाँों की द्वारा ही टिकय आपत्तियाँा जा सकता है, अन्य आपत्तियाँ स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज अथवा नोएडा में भूखण्डों की रहने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग वाले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग आम टिनवासिसय आपत्तियाँों की द्वारा इन सुटिव-ाओं को उपय आपत्तियाँोग प्रैस्थिक्टकली नही टिकय आपत्तियाँा जा सके कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग गा, अपनी य आपत्तियाँोजनाओं में भूखण्डों की बाउण्ड्री वॉल का टिनमा(cid:25)र्ण है कर त्तिलय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा है। 5. 6. कारर्ण है खे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ल सुटिव-ाएें भूखण्डों की टिवकसिसत टिकय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग जाने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग में भूखण्डों की कटिठनाई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ हो रही है। 7. सिसटी के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग स्थान पर हाउसिंसग परिरय आपत्तियाँोजनओंकी भांधित है। चोरों की स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिवकासकता(cid:25)ओंपर लगभग रू- 4000 ब्रोशर में भूखण्डों की Aी गय आपत्तियाँी शतE के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिवपरीत लीड में भूखण्डों की म्बर द्वारा कन्सोर्शिशय आपत्तियाँम से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग बाहर हो जाने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) सिसटीज का टिवकास इन्टीग्रे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ड रूप से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग नही हुआ है एंव उनका स्वरूप स्पोर्ट्स सिटी में भूखण्डों की स(cid:25) क्य आपत्तियाँोटिक टिबल्डरों की द्वारा अपनी- करोड़ की देनदारी है। की Aे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग नAारी है। सटिमधित की उक्त अन्य तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटीज का विकास ग्रुप रिरपोट(cid:25) प्राधि-करर्ण है बोड(cid:25) के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग समक्ष अवलोकनाथ(cid:25) एंव टिAशा टिनAeश सिजस पर प्राधि-करर्ण है बोड(cid:25) द्वारा टिनम्नवत टिनर्ण है(cid:25)य आपत्तियाँ प्रAान टिकय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग जाने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु प्रस्तुत की गय आपत्तियाँी थी, त्तिलय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँाः- संचालक मण्डल द्वारा सटिमधित की आख्य आपत्तियाँा को संज्ञान में भूखण्डों की ले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ते कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हुए सुटिवचारिरत प्रस्ताव माग(cid:25)Aश(cid:25)न प्राटिप्त विड्स की स्क्रीनिंग हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु शासन को प्रे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिoत करने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग का टिनर्ण है(cid:25)य आपत्तियाँ त्तिलय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा। अतः प्राधि-करर्ण है बोड(cid:25) द्वारा त्तिलय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग गय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग उपरोक्त अन्य तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटीज का विकास ग्रुप टिनर्ण है(cid:25)य आपत्तियाँ एंव नौएडा प्राधि-करर्ण है के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग पूव(cid:25) क्रम में भूखण्डों की शासन स्तर से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग स्पोटu(cid:25) सिसटीज के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग सम्बन्- में भूखण्डों की टिAशा- प्रे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिoत पत्र टिAनांक 16.06.2021 के टिनAeश प्रAान करने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग का कO करें भूखण्डों की । प्राधि-करर्ण है बोड(cid:25) के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग समक्ष स्पोट(cid:25) सिसटीज के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग सम्बन्- में भूखण्डों की रखे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग गय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग प्रस्ताव एंवकाय!वृ# की प्रधित संलग्न है। फोटोग्राफ्स का अवलोकन करने से कर प्रे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिoत की जा रही है। संलग्न है। फोटोग्राफ्स का अवलोकन करने सेक य आपत्तियाँथोपरिर ”।

32. After the CAG report, NOIDA froze all the activities in the Sports City and referred the matter to the State Government for direction and guidance as to what has to be done. Looking into the gravity of the situation a Public Accounts Committee4 comprising of members of Legislative Assembly was constituted to look into the issue. PRAYERS MADE IN THE LEADING WRIT PETITION NO.15604 OF 2021

33. Since then, nothing had happened, so the Lead Member on behalf of the Consortium (petitioner company) has filed the instant writ petition i.e .Writ C No.15604 of 2021 (M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) seeking following reliefs:- “I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDMUS directing the respondents to extend the benefit of zero period to the Petitioner not only up to the admitted date of 17.08.2017 but till the actual peaceful vacant 4 PAC 21 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. physical possession of the land in question being Plot no. Sport City SC-02 in Sector 150, NOIDA, is handed over to the Petitioner. II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature MANDMUS directing the respondents not to demand/realize the installment and interest on the lease premium until the actual peaceful vacant physical possession of the land in question being Plot no. Sport City -2 in Sector 150, NOIDA, is handed over to the Petitioner. III. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature MANDMUS directing the respondents not to demand/charge lease rent upto the admitted date of 17.08.2017 but till the actual peaceful vacant physical possession of the land in question being Plot no. Sport City -2 in Sector 150, NOIDA, is handed over to the Petitioner. IV. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature MANDMUS directing the respondents to grant extension of construction timeline ought to be calculated from the date when the actual peaceful vacant physical possession of the land in question being Plot no. Sport City -2 in Sector 150, NOIDA, is handed over to the Petitioner. V. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature MANDMUS directing the respondents to provide to the Petitioner, a restructuring of the repayment schedule so that the amount is paid to Noida Authority in terms of order dt. 10.06.2020 and 10.07.2020 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 940/2017 in the Amrapali Batch Matters as against the allotment of the land in question to the Petitioner being Plot no. Sports City-2 in Sector-150, NOIDA. VI. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the Demand/intimation letter dt. 15.03.2021 passed by Noida Authority being incorrect and further preventing the Respondent Authorities from taking any coercive action against the Petitioner with respect to the legal right of the Petitioner over the land in question being Plot no. Sport City-SC-02 in Sector 150, NOIDA. VII. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature MANDAMUS, directing the respondents to pay damages and compensation to the additional premium as extra compensation awarded to the Farmers have been levied upon the Petitioner and included in the total cost of the allotment of the land in question to the Petitioner. VIII. To issue any other order of direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IX. To award the cost of the petition to this Petitioner. X. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature MANDAMUS directing the respondents to provide to the Petitioner, a restructuring of the repayment schedule as against the allotment of the land in question to the Petitioner being Plot no. Sport City-2 in Sector 150, NOIDA. XI. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature MANDAMUS, directing the Respondent No.2 to execute lease deeds of the balance land admeasuring 1,23,854 sq meter allotted to the various allottees forming part of the Sports City Plot in question. XII. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the decision of Board of the Respondent No. 2 taken in 201st Board Meeting 22 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. dated 18-01-2021 whereby all the approvals, sanctions, permissions and other decisions in respect of Sports City Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Gautam Buddh Nagar, U.P have been put on hold/freeze; XIII. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature MANDAMUS, directing the Respondent No.2 to approve the building plans, revision in building plans, revalidation of building plans and such other approvals/sanctions/clarifications related to permission to mortgage, change in constitution of the Allottees, transfer approvals etc. as may be required to execute the Sports City Project efficiently. XIV. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the demand letter dated 06-09-2017 along with letter dated 31-07- 2020 issued by Respondent no.2 demanding INR 392.88/- (Rupees Three Hundred Crores and Eighty Eight Crores only) by way of Pratikar towards payment of additional farmers compensation in respect of Subject Plot being SC-02-, Sports City, Sector 150, Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar, U.P; XV. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Respondent no. 2 to not take any coercive steps /actions pursuant to the impugned demand notice dated 06-09-2017 issued by Respondent no.2. XVI. To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Respondent no. 2 to grant benefit of zero-period in respect of plot no. 80-02/A forming part of Sports City Plot in question for the period commencing from date of allotment of the said plot till the date on which; (i) the encroachment from the said plot no, SC-02/A is removed and vacant physical and peaceful possession of the encroachment portion is handed over by Respondent no.2 to the petitioner and (ii) lease deed in respect of the Unleased Portion of the said plot SC-02/A is executed by Respondent no.2 in Favour of the Petitioner. XVII. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Respondent no. 2 to grant benefit of zero-period to M/s Build Wall Builders Private Limited in respect of plot no. SC-02/A2 for the period commencing from 01-10-2016 till the date on which the encroachment from the said plot no. SC-02/A2 is removed and vacant physical and peaceful possession of the encroachment portion is handed over by Respondent no.2. XVIII. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent. no. 2 to grant benefit of zero-period to Gray Wall Brick Town, Villa Stone and Vicetech the benefit of zero period in respect of plots nos, namely SC-02/A4, SC-02/A6, SC-02/N and SC-02/P forming part of Sports City Plot in question for the period commencing from 01-10-2016 till the date on which the lease deed in respect of plot no. SC-02/P is executed by respondent no. 2 in favour of Vicetech. XIX. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Respondent no. 2 to grant benefit of zero-period to M/s Escarpment Buildcraft Private Limited in respect of plot no. SC-02/A10, forming part of Sports City Plot in question for the period commencing from 01-10-2016 till the date on which the lease deed in respect of the Unleased Portion of Plot No. SC- 02A/A10 is executed by Respondent no. 2. XX. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Respondent no. 2 to grant benefit of zero-period to Elate Realtors Private 23 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Limited in respect of plot no. SC-02/B for the period commencing from 01-10- 2016 till the date on which the encroachment from the said plot no. SC-02/B is removed and vacant physical and peaceful possession of the encroachment portion is handed over by Respondent no.2. PRAYERS MADE IN THE CONNECTED WRIT PETITIONS (1) In Writ-C 30347 of 2023 (M/s Reverent Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others:- “(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to execute and register lease deed in respect of the Subject Plot being SC-02/M, admeasuring 37,231 sq. meters forming part of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot No. SC-02, Sector-150, Noida, Gautam Budha Nagar, U.P. and more particularly shown and Approved Layout Plan of Sports City Plot annexed demarcated in Lotus Greens hereto as Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition. (ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus Respondent No. 1 to directing the take appropriate decision on the matter pertaining to the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot by removing the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City arising out of the impugned decision of Respondent No.3 in its 2015t Board Meeting dated 18-01-2021. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing/setting aside decision of the Respondent No. 3 to stop/put on hold sanction of building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City Plot Namely Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P, taken in the 201st Board Meeting of Respondent No. 3 on 18-01-2021 (Annexure No. 3 to this writ Petition). (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to allow construction and development of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot in accordance with Approved Layout Plan dated 17-01-2017 (Annexure No. 2 to this Writ Petition) OR in the alternative a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 3 to approve sanction the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent No.4 on 05-12-2022 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) and also to provide such other approvals/ sanctions/ permissions from time to time as may be required to enable the Petitioner to commence construction in the Subject Plot in accordance and the Scheme Brochure for the construction and development of the sports city project in the Subject Plot. (v) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to (i) grant zero period with regard to the payment of lease premium and annual lease rent in respect of the Subject Plot (ii) grant extension of time for completion of project in the Subject Plot without payment of any charges, for the period commencing from 01-03-2016 up to the date on which Respondent No. 3 executes lease deed in respect of the Subject Plot in favour 24 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. of the Petitioner and further for the period commencing from 18-01-2021 i.e. date on which the Board of the Respondent No. 3 has suspended the approval/ sanction/revision of building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot till the date on which the Respondent No. 3 removes the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City and permits development of sports city project in accordance with Approved Lay Out Plan dated 17-01-2017 OR approves the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent No.4, whichever is later. (vi) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not issue any demand note or any default notices till the time Respondent No. 3 executes lease deed in respect of the Subject Plot in favour of the Petitioner and further up to the date on which ban sanction of building plans in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot is lifted OR Revised Lay Out Plan is approved, whichever is later. (vii) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.” (2) In Writ-C No. 33174 of 2023 (M/s Wish Land Buildzone Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others):- Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari “(i) quashing/setting aside Impugned Demand Notice dated 28-03- 2023 (Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition) purporting to be for payment of alleged outstanding dues towards installments of lease premium amounting to Rs. 142,26,78,663/- and towards annual lease rent amounting to Rs. 21,08,14,796/- in aggregate Rs. 163,34,93,7459/- in respect of plot no. SC-02/A-8, admeasuring 50,560 sq. meters located in sports city Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not take any coercive steps/actions pursuant to Demand Notice dated 28-03-2023; (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to take appropriate decision on the matter pertaining to the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot by removing the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City arising out of the impugned decision of Respondent No.3 in its 201st Board Meeting dated 18-01-2021. (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing/setting aside decision of the Respondent No. 3 to stop/put on hold sanction of building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City Plot Namely Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P, taken in the 201st Board Meeting of Respondent No. 3 on 18-01-2021 (Annexure No. 3 to this writ petition). (v) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 to allow construction and development of the Lotus Greens 25 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Sports City Plot in accordance with Approved Layout Plan dated 17-01-2017 (Annexure No. 5 to this Writ Petition) OR in the alternative a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 3 to approve sanction the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5 on 05-12-2022 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) and also to provide such other approvals/ sanctions/ permissions from time to time as may be required to enable the Petitioner to commence construction in the Subject Plot in accordance with Sub- Lease Deed and the Scheme Brochure for the construction and development of the sports city project in the Subject Plot. (vi) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to (i) grant zero period with regard to the payment of lease premium and annual lease rent in respect of the Subject Plot (ii) grant extension of time without payment of any extra charges for completion of project in the Subject Plot, for the period commencing from 25-03-2020 up to 31-12-2020 on account of outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic and thereafter for the period commencing from 18-01-2021 i.e. date on which the Board of the Respondent No. suspended the 3 has approval/sanction/revision of building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot till the date on which the Respondent No. 3 removes the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City and permits development of sports city project in accordance with Approved Lay Out Plan dated 17-01-2017 OR approves the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5, whichever is later; (vii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not issue any demand note or any further or subsequent default notices up to the date on which ban sanction of building plans in respect of the Subject Sports City Plot is lifted or Revised Lay Out Plan is approved is, whichever is later; (viii) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.” (3) In Writ-C No. 33182 of 2023 (M/S Escarpment Buildcraft Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others):- “(i). Issue, a writ, order and/or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/ setting aside aside Impugned Demand Notice dated 27-03- 2023 (Annexure No.-2 to this writ petition) purporting to be for payment of alleged outstanding dues towards installments of lease premium amounting to Rs. 269,78,46,360/- and towards annual lease rent amounting to 39,33,82,733/- in aggregate Rs. 309,12,29,093/- in respect of Subject Plot being plot SC-02/A10, located in sports city Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P; (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not take any coercive steps/actions pursuant to the Impugned Demand Notice dated 27-03-2023. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to clear the encroachment of Encroached Portion (as per Super- imposed Shazra Map i.e. Annexure -4 to this writ petition) from the 26 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Subject Plot and handover vacant, physical and peaceful possession thereof to the Petitioner; (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to execute and register lease deed in respect of the Unleased Portion admeasuring 13842 sq. meters forming part of the Subject Plot; (v). Issue a writ, order or nature of Mandamus Respondent No. 1 to direction in the directing the take appropriate decision on the matter pertaining to the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot by removing the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City arising out of the impugned decision of Respondent No.3 in its 201st Board Meeting dated 18-01-2021; (vi) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing/ setting aside decision of the Respondent No. 3 to stop/put on hold sanction of building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City Plot Namely Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P, taken in the 201st Board Meeting of Respondent No. 3 on 18-01-2021 (Annexure No. 3 to this writ Petition); (vii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to allow construction and development of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot in accordance with Approved Layout Plan dated 17-01-2017 (Annexure No. 5 to this Writ Petition) OR in the alternative a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 3 to approve sanction the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5 on 05-12- 2022 (Annexure No. P-6 to the writ petition) and also to provide such other approvals/ sanctions/ permissions from time to time as may be required to enable the Petitioner to commence construction in the Subject Plot in accordance with Lease Deed and the Scheme Brochure for the construction and development of the sports city project in the Subject Plot; (viii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to (i) grant zero period with regard to the payment of lease premium and annual lease rent in respect of the Subject Plot (ii) grant extension of time for completion of project in the Subject Plot, for the period commencing from 25-03-2020 up to 31-12-2020 on account of outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic and thereafter for the period commencing from 18-01-2021 i.e. date on which the Board of the Respondent No. 3 has suspended the approval/sanction/revision of building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot till the date on which the Respondent No. 3 removes the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City and permits development of sports city project in accordance with Approved Lay Out Plan dated 17-01-2017 OR approves the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5, whichever is later; (ix) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to (i) grant zero period with regard to the payment of lease premium, annual lease rent in respect of the Subject Plot and (ii) grant extension of time for completion of project in the Subject Plot, for the period commencing from 01-10-2016 up to the date on which Respondent No.3 (i) removes encroachment from Encroached Portion of the Subject Plot; and (ii) 27 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. executes lease deed in respect of the Unleased portion forming part of Subject Plot AND (iii) removes the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot and permits development of sports city project in accordance with Approved Lay Out Plan dated 17-01-2017 OR approves the Revised Lay Out Plan dated 05-12-2022, whichever is later; (x). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not issue any demand note or any further or subsequent default notices till the time the Subject Plot remains encroached OR up to the date on which ban sanction of building plans in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot is lifted OR Revised Lay Out Plan is approved, whichever is later; (xi) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.” (4) In Writ -C No. 33191 of 2023 ( M/s Build Wall Builders Private Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others):- “(i). Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside aside Impugned Demand Notice dated 28-03- 2023 (Annexure No.-2 to this writ petition) purporting to be for payment of alleged outstanding dues towards installments of premium amounting lease to Rs. 186,91,83,445/- and towards annual lease rent amounting to 28,29,17,744/- in aggregate Rs.215,21,01,189/- in respect of Subject Plot being plot SC-02/A-2, admeasuring 65,331.00 sq. meters located in sports city Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. (ii) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not take any coercive steps/actions pursuant to the Impugned Demand Notice dated 28-03-2023. (iii) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to clear the encroachment of Encroached Portion (as per Super- imposed Shazra Map i.e. Annexure no.4 to this writ petition) from the Subject Plot and handover vacant, physical and peaceful possession thereof to the Petitioner. (iv) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to take appropriate decision on the matter pertaining to the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot by removing the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City arising out of the impugned decision of Respondent No.3 in its 2015t Board Meeting dated 18-01-2021. (v). Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing/setting aside the decision of the Respondent No. 3 to stop/put on hold sanction of building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City Plot Namely Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P, taken in the 201st Board Meeting of Respondent No. 3 on 18-01-2021 (Annexure No.3 to this writ Petition). 28 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (vi) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to allow construction and development of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot in accordance with Approved Layout Plan dated 17-01-2017 (Annexure No.5 to this Writ Petition) OR in the alternative a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 3 to approve sanction the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5 on 05-12-2022 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) and also to provide such other approvals/ sanctions/ permissions from time to time as may be required to enable the Petitioner to commence construction in the Subject Plot in accordance with Lease Deed and the Scheme Brochure for the construction and development of the sports city project in the Subject Plot. (vii) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to (i) grant zero period with regard to the payment of lease premium and annual lease rent in respect of the Subject Plot (ii) grant extension of time for completion of project in the Subject Plot, for the period commencing from 25- 03-2020 up to 31-12-2020 on account of outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic and thereafter for the period commencing from 18-01-2021 i.e. date on which the Board of the Respondent No.3 has suspended the approval/sanction/revision of building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot till the date on which the Respondent No. 3 removes the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City and permits development of sports city project in accordance with Approved Lay Out Plan dated 17-01-2017 OR approves the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5, whichever is later. (viii) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to (i) grant zero period with regard to the payment of lease premium, annual lease rent in respect of the Subject Plot and (ii) grant extension of time for completion of project in the Subject Plot, for the period commencing from 01-10-2016 up to the date on which Respondent No.3 (i) removes encroachment from Encroached Portion of the Subject Plot; and (ii) removes the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot and permits development of sports city project in accordance with Approved Lay Out Plan dated 17-01- 2017 OR approves the Revised Lay Out Plan dated 05-12-2022, whichever is later. (ix) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not issue any demand note or any further or subsequent default notices till the time the Subject Plot remains encroached OR up to the date on which ban sanction of building plans in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot is lifted OR Revised Lay Out Plan is approved, whichever is later. (x) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice. (5) In Writ -C No. 33193 of 2023 (M/s Brick Town Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others):- 29 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside Impugned Demand Notice dated 27-03- 2023 (Annexure No.2 to this writ petition) purporting to be for payment of alleged outstanding dues towards installments of lease premium amounting to Rs. 99,46,82,787/- and towards annual lease rent amounting to 15,80,90,928/- in aggregate Rs. 115,27,73,715/- in respect of plot no. SC- 02/A-6, admeasuring 37,915 sq. meters located in sports city Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. (ii) Issue writ, order or nature of direction in the mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not take any coercive steps/actions pursuant to the Impugned Demand Notice dated 27-03-2023. (iii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 to take appropriate decision on the matter pertaining to the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot by removing the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City arising out of the impugned decision of Respondent No.3 in its 201st Board Meeting dated 18-01-2021. (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing and/or setting aside decision of the Respondent No. 3 to stop/put on hold sanction building plans and other approvals of in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City Plot Namely Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P, taken in the 201st Board Meeting of Respondent No. 3 on 18- 01-2021 (Annexure No.3 to this writ Petition). (v) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to allow construction and development of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot in accordance with Approved Layout Plan dated 17-01-2017 (Annexure No. 5 to this Writ Petition) OR in the alternative a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 3 to approve sanction the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5 on 05-12-2022 (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition) and also to provide such other approvals/ sanctions/ permissions from time to time as may be required to enable the Petitioner to commence construction in the Subject Plot in accordance with Lease Deed and the Scheme Brochure for the construction and development of the sports city project in the Subject Plot. (vi) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to (i) grant zero period with regard to the payment of lease premium and annual lease rent in respect of the Subject Plot (ii) grant extension of time for completion of project in the Subject Plot, for the period commencing from 25-03-2020 up to 31-12-2020 on account of outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic and thereafter for the period commencing from 18-01-2021 i.e. date on which the Board of the Respondent No. 3 has suspended the approval/sanction/revision of building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot till the date on which the Respondent No. 3 removes the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City and permits development of sports city project in accordance with Approved Lay Out Plan dated 17-01-2017 OR approves the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5, whichever is later. 30 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (vii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not issue any demand note or any further or subsequent default notices up to the date on which ban sanction of building plans in respect of the Subject Sports City Plot is lifted or Revised Lay Out Plan is approved is, whichever is later. (viii) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.” (6) In Writ -C No. 33212 of 2023 (M/s Gray Brick Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others):- “(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside Impugned Demand Notice dated 27-03- 2023 (Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition) purporting to be for payment of alleged outstanding dues towards installments of lease premium amounting to Rs. 23,10,13173/- and towards annual lease rent amounting to Rs. 3,3713,432/- in aggregate Rs. 26,47,26,605/ in respect of plot no. SC-02/A-5, admeasuring 8080 sq. meters located in sports city Plot No. SC- 02, Sector 150, Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P; (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not take any coercive steps/actions pursuant to the Impugned Demand Notice dated 27-03-2023; (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Respondent Mandamus No. 1 to directing the take appropriate decision on the matter pertaining to the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot by removing the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of Greens Lotus Sports City arising out of the impugned decision of Respondent No.3 in its 201st Board Meeting dated 18-01-2021; (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside decision of the Respondent No. 3 to stop/put on hold sanction of building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City Plot Namely Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P, taken in the 201st Board Meeting of Respondent No. 3 on 18-01-2021 (Annexure No. 3 to this writ petition); (v) Issue a writ, nature of order or direction in the Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to allow construction and development of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot in accordance with Approved Layout Plan dated 17-01-2017 (Annexure No. 5 to this Writ Petition) OR in the alternative a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 3 to approve sanction the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5 on 05-12-2022 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) and also to provide such other approvals/ sanctions/ permissions from time to time as may be required to enable the Petitioner to commence construction in the Subject Plot in accordance with Sub- Lease Deed and the Scheme Brochure for the construction and development of the sports city project in the Subject Plot; (vi) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to (i) grant zero period with regard to the payment of lease 31 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. premium and annual lease rent in respect of the Subject Plot (ii) grant extension of time without payment of any extra charges for completion of project in the Subject Plot, for the period commencing from 25-03-2020 up to 31-12-2020 on account of outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic and thereafter for the period commencing from 18-01-2021 i.e. date on which the Board of the Respondent No. 3 has suspended the approval/sanction/revision of building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot till the date on which the Respondent No. 3 removes the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City and permits development of sports city project in accordance with Approved Lay Out Plan dated 17-01-2017 OR approves the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent no.5, whichever is later; (vii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not issue any demand note or any further or subsequent default notices up to the date. on which ban sanction of building plans in respect of the Subject Sports City Plot is lifted or Revised Lay Out Plan is approved is, whichever is later; (viii). Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.” (7) In Writ -C No. 35911 of 2023 (M/s Vicetech Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others):- “(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the No. 3 to execute and register lease deed in respect of the Subject Plot being SC- 02/P, admeasuring 17,344 sq. meters forming part of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot No. SC-02, Sector- 150, Noida, Gautam Budha Nagar, U.P. and more particularly shown and demarcated in Approved Layout Plan of Lotus Greens Sports City Plot annexed hereto as Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition. (ii) Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to take appropriate decision on the matter pertaining to the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot by removing the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City arising out of the impugned decision of Respondent No.3 in its 201st Board Meeting dated 18-01-2021. (iii) Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing/setting aside decision of the Respondent No. 3 to stop/put on hold sanction of building plans and other approvals in respect of Lotus Greens Sports City Plot Namely Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P, taken in the 201st Board Meeting of Respondent No. 3 on 18-01-2021 (Annexure No. 3 to this writ Petition). (iv) Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 to allow construction and development of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot in accordance with Approved Layout Plan dated 17-01-2017 (Annexure No. 2 to this Writ Petition) OR in the alternative a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 3 to approve sanction the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by 32 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. the Respondent No.4 on 05-12- 2022 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) and also to provide such other approvals/ sanctions/ permissions from time to time as may be required to enable the Petitioner to commence construction in the Subject Plot in accordance and the Scheme Brochure for the construction and development of the sports city project in the Subject Plot. (v) Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to (i) grant zero period with regard to the payment of lease premium and annual lease rent in respect of the Subject Plot (ii) grant extension of time for completion of project in the Subject Plot without payment of any charges, for the period commencing from 01-03-2016 up to the date on which Respondent No. 3 executes lease deed in respect of the Subject Plot in favour of the Petitioner and further for the period commencing from 18-01-2021 i.e. date on which the Board of the Respondent No. 3 has suspended the evision of approval/sanction/ building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot till the date on which the Respondent No. 3 removes the ban on the approvals in respect building plans and other approvals in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City and permits development of sports city project in accordance with Approved Lay Out Plan dated 17-01-2017 OR approves the Revised Lay Out Plan submitted by the Respondent No.4, whichever is later. (vi) Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to not issue any demand note or any default notices till the time Respondent No. 3 executes lease deed in respect of the Subject Plot in favour of the Petitioner and further up to the date on which ban sanction of building plans in respect of the Lotus Greens Sports City Plot is lifted OR Revised Lay Out Plan is approved, whichever is later. (vii) Issue other any writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.” ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

34. Initially the batch of writ petitions were argued by Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prateek Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners. They vehemently submitted that the actual physical possession of the entire leased area of Sports City SC-02 in Sector 150 was not handed over to the petitioners due to dispute between the farmers regarding the acquisition of the land. The additional compensation has also been added as premium and the same was paid by the petitioners. In spite of it the Noida Authority could not sort out the issue with the farmers inasmuch as when the premium was paid, there 33 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. was no reason as to why the NOIDA Authority could not hand over the land to the petitioners for the development of the sports city.

35. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, to buttress their arguments, made the following submissions.

36. Noida has a policy whereby any land of a project which is threatended by encumbrances would be covered by the zero period policy. The allottee of said land/project is exempted from paying the ground rent, interest and other levies for the entire period till such encumbrances or dispute exists. Since, in this case, on the plot in question there was dispute and encumbrances hence, the benefit of zero period policy should be extended to the petitioners.

37. It was further submitted that since contagious land was not handed over to the petitioners, hence they were not in a position to start the execution of the development of the sports city and that is why the petitioners had requested the respondents to grant benefit of the policy of zero period.

38. Noida Authority was well aware of these encumbrances and problems and that is why they granted the benefit of zero period for an area of 9,94,218 sqm. from the date of allotment to 30.09.2016 but in the order dated 12.09.2016 granting the benefit of zero period a line was wrongly added that the benefit of zero period will not be extended.

39. They further submitted that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of zero period benefit over the land in question uptill date as the entire physical possession of land has not been handed over to the petitioners. The petitioners are entitled for damages and compensation as the delay was on the part of Noida Authority. 34 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

40. Noida Authority in this case had issued the allotment letter way back on 29.10.2016 in favour of the petitioners without having possession of the said land. Even while allotting the said land Noida Authority had not informed the petitioners about these problems. They have misled and misrepresentated the petitioners and because of that the petitioners got into the trouble of what they are in right now.

41. It is an admitted position of Noida Authority that they have handed over the possession of only a portion of the allotted land on 17.08.2017, however, till date complete and vacant possession of the entire land in question has not been handed over to the petitioners, and therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of zero period not only till

17.08.2017 but till date or the date till the entire complete and vacant possession of the land is not handed over to them. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of zero period as per the zero period policy. However, the Authority is not extending the period only on the ground that in the order dated 12.09.2016 it was mentioned that no further benefit of zero period would be awarded to them. The condition what is in existence at that point of time is still continuing now. Since the possession of the entire allotted land was not handed over, they are entitled for the benefit of zero period. Further, the Noida Authority cannot take advantage of its own wrong to the detriment of the petitioners’ interest.

42. NOIDA Authority on 04.02.2020 has sent a notice to the petitioners seeking an update on the development of the recreational facility on the land in question for which the petitioners had given a response highlighting the various issues and sought extension of timeline and also 35 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. sought the benefit of zero period to be extended to the petitioners till the possession of entire allotted land is not handed over to them.

43. They further submitted that the benefit of directions passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bikram Chaterjee & ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.5, wherein reduced rate of interest of 8.5% was made applicable on the allottees, should be extended to the petitioners.

44. They pointed out that the Noida Authority has failed to provide access road with functioning system, which was a condition for allotment. The normal infrastructure, which was supposed to be provided, was not provided to the petitioners, and in the absence of the same, the petitioners could not carry out the development of Sports City.

45. The NOIDA Authority has also failed to take steps to intimate the petitioners of the dispute in relation to the land acquisition. On account of the abject failure of the State machinery in safeguarding the interest of allottees, the petitioners has sufferred a huge loss.

46. The additional premium, which was required for the payment of additional compensation, was already included by the NOIDA Authority at the time of allotment of the land in question to the petitioners, and as such, the land was to be given free of encumbrances. However, the land allotted was not free of encumbrances and Noida Authority did not had the possession even to allot the land, and thus, action of NOIDA Authority is nothing but a cheating and criminal breach of trust.

47. They further submitted that in spite of all the odds, the petitioners are still continuing to develop the sports city. The Additional CEO of NOIDA had visited the site and he himself was satisfied with the progress 5 2019(19) SCC 161 36 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. of the projects, the construction of infrastructure and the development of sports facility. The petitioners had submitted a detailed progress report along with the future plan in respect of the sports city project. The earlier map was approved by the NOIDA Authority but since the petitioners did not have the possession of the land, he could not execute the project, in the meanwhile the validity of the map had come to an end. The petitioners have again applied for the revalidation of the map and the same is pending. For the reasons best known to NOIDA Authority, they are not revalidating the map, though the entire delay is attributable to the NOIDA Authority. They submitted that because of the inaction of the NOIDA Authority and its failure to provide the complete possession of the land, the petitioners are unable to complete the project. Hence, the relief prayed for in the writ petition may be accorded to the petitioners. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

48. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Kaushlendra Nath Singh and Ms. Anjali Goklani, learned counsel for the Noida Authority submitted that before proceeding in the matter, it is worthwhile to mention the connection of the petitioners along with the consortium and also their antecedents.

49. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the main feature of the Sports City Scheme was the sports facilities, which is an integrated project and has to be developed as a whole. Even if a Consortium Company applied for the project, it was the Consortium as a whole that is assumed to be the lessee and not any individual company.

50. To elaborate his arguments, learned Senior Advocate for NOIDA made the following submissions. 37 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

51. The NOIDA invited applications for allotment of Sports City Plot No.SC-02 in Sector-150, NOIDA. As per the brochure a Consortium was also allowed to participate. An application for allotment of this plot was made by the Consortium in which Lead Member was M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd., along with M/s Three C Infrastructure Private Limited; M/s Three C Infra Square Private Limited; M/s Three C Buildcon Private Limited; M/s Elate Realtor Private Limited; M/s Three C Crest Promoters Private Limited, and M/s Allure Developers Private Limited on 23.6.2014.

52. As per the application, the lead member M/s Lotus Green Construction Pvt. Ltd., was a subsidiary company of M/s Three C Universal Developers Pvt Ltd. The bid was made on the qualification of M/s Three C Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, which was also one of its group company. Surprisingly, Sports City 01/78-79 was also allotted to the same group of companies on the basis of the qualification of the same company i.e. M/s Three C Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

53. Normally, a Consortium is a group of different companies/ builders/ developers, who come together to complete a project. However, in this case most of the members in the consortium were companies, which were incorporated by the same set of Directors/Promoters.

54. On the request of the Lead Member of the Consortium, Noida Authority executed separate Lease Deeds in favour of the Members of the Consortium. Here the original allottee had made a web of companies and on the request of the allottee, various lease deeds were signed by the companies, which were wholly owned and controlled by the promoters namely, Nirmal Singh, Surpreet Singh Suri and Vidur Bhardwaj. 38 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. However, a perusal of the said lease deed, elucidates that the Sports City Project was supposed to be developed as an integrated whole.

55. The original allottee representing the entire group filed a Master Lay Out Plan for development of the entire Sports City, which was approved, in which they themselves had divided the roles and obligations of each companies towards the development of the project. This decision was an internal arrangement between the consortium members. As far as Noida Authority is concerned, the sports city is an integral project, which had to be developed by the consortium as per the scheme.

56. The Consortium made a request for grant of zero period as the possession of the entire land had not been granted to the Consortium. The NOIDA Authority vide order dated 12.9.2016 declared zero period for the sports city project for an area of 9,94,218 sq meters till 30.09.2016. It was made clear that no further benefit of zero period would be extended to the allottes. This letter/order was never challenged by the petitioners and it has attained finality. After taking the benefit once it is not open for the petitioners to ask for the same benefit again.

57. In spite of availing the benefit of the zero period, and after execution of the fresh payment plan, the petitioners still did not pay the due instalments and a notice for payment of the dues was issued, as of now the outstanding dues for the sports city, as on 31.7.2020, was Rs.1215.14 crore.

58. An audit was conducted by the CAG, who pointed out certain deficiencies in the allotment, implementation and development of sports city. The report of the CAG was tabled in September 2020. Thereafter, the meeting of the Board of NOIDA was held on 18.01.2021 (201st Board 39 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Meeting) in which it was resolved that recommendation should be made to PAC to look into the deficiencies pointed out by CAG and give a report. As an interim measure, it was further resolved that no action should be taken towards development of sports city nor any maps should be revalidated. Further, on the basis of the report submitted in the next Board meeting (202nd) held on 25.06.2021, it was resolved that the matter may be referred to the State Government for necessary guidance and direction.

59. The decision of the Board meeting (201st Meeting), and the subsequent fallout of the decision are the main ground of challenge in various writ petitions filed by the developers in this Court.

60. From the perusal of the brochure, it is evident that various components of development in the Project has been clearly demarcated in percentages. The entire scheme of the Sports City Project discloses that group housing/ residential purpose is complimentary to the principal objective of development of the sports facilities. The residential purpose and the commercial purpose being complementary to the development of sports facility, hence it can only be viewed to be an integrated project.

61. The sub-lessee cannot claim to be created only for development of Group Housing Project as this will be an antithesis to the integrated project scheme under which the allotment was done.

62. Since, Group Housing does not come in the category of project on a stand alone basis under the Sports City Scheme it cannot be conceived to be a complete project without development of the sports facilities, inasmuch as the sports facility is the primary project and group housing is 40 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. complimenting the sports facility project and in that sense Group Housing becomes an integral part of the project.

63. As per the sanctioned map, the obligations taken upon themselves for each company in SC-02/ Sector-150 ( M/s Three C Green Developers Sports City Pvt. Ltd.) were as follows:- S.No. Name of Subsidary Company Secto r No. Sub Divided Plot No. Plot Area (Sqm.) Sports Activities as per Approved Layout Plan Status as per Site

1. Land Kart Builders Pvt. Ltd., 150 SC- 02/A1

83970.00 Tennis Centre-1  Tower-1, G+1  Tower-2,3,4 Ground Floor  Tower19,20,21  Foundation and Rafting work

2. Wiztown Planners Pvt. Ltd., 150 SC- 02/A3

27185.00 Pro Shops/ Food and Beverage  Site is Vacant. Work not started.

7. 8 Brick Town Developers Pvt. Ltd. Stroung Biz Prop build Pvt. Ltd., Wishland Buildzone Pvt. Ltd., Wondrous Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., 150 SC- 02/A6

37915.00 Basket Ball/ Badminton Court  Site is Vacant. Work not started. SC- 02/A7

50790.00 ----  Tower-A,B,C, Foundation work is started.  Tower-D,E,F,G Foundation excavation work is started. 150 SC- 02/A8

50560.00  Site is Vacant. Work not started. 150 SC- 02/A9

80857.00 Cricket Academy  Tower-Life-1, B+S+3  Tower-Life-2, B+S+3  Tower-Verbe-1 B+S+1  Tower-Verbe-2 B+S  Tower-Verbe-3 B+S  Tower-Verbe-4 Foundation and Rafting. Elate Realtors Pvt. Ltd., 150 SC- 02/B

100000.00 ----  Site vacant Samridhi Infra Square Pvt. Ltd., 150 SC- 02/D

40186.50 ---  Tower D,E,F,G,H,I- Structure complete, finishing work in progress.  Tower JG+1  Tower C, K, L-G Floor.  Tower-A & B-Construction not started. 41 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Samridhi Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. 150 SC- 02/E

32519.22 ---  Sport Activity not developed.  Work not started. Site is Vacant. 150 SC- 02/F

58064.71 ---  Foundation work started. 150 SC- 02/G

60000.00 ---  Work not started. Site is Vacant. 150 SC- 02/H &1 72000.00 ---

12. ACE Infracity Developers Pvt. Ltd., Crest Promotors Pvt. Ltd., Brick Rise Developers Pvt. Ltd., Tower-A1-G+9 Tower-A2-G+11  Tower-A1A-A2A-Rafting  Tower-B1-G+5  Tower-B2 G+6  Tower-B3-G+7  Tower-C1-G+7  Tower-BIA, B2A, B3A, CIA, DIA & D1- Foundation work.  Tower-1 B+S+  Tower-2,3 Basement  Tower-4-B+S+1  Tower-5, Basement only  Tower -6, B+5  Tower-7,8,9,10,11 & 12- Foundation Piling work.

13. Fest Homes Developers Pvt. Ltd., 150 SC- 02/J & K

72000.00 Tennis Centre-3 OUTSTANDING DUES OF THE SPORT CITIES as on 31.7.2020

64. The total dues of the various Sports cities by their developers were as under:- Serial No. Name of the developer Plot / sector Description of Dues ( In CRORES) i. M/s Three C Green sector 78, 79 and

401.01 Developers Pvt. Ltd., 101 ii. M/s Logix Infra developer SC-01/150

1685.74 Pvt. Ltd., iii. M/s Three C Green SC-02/150

1215.14 Developers Sports city Pvt. 42 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Ltd. iv. M/s ATS Homes Pvt. Ltd., SC-01/152

609.18 Total outstanding

3911.07 Dues This outstanding dues as on 31.7.2020, is Rs 3911.07 crores, coupled with the contractual rate of interest till January 2025 the total dues will become more than Rs. 6300 CRORES.

65. The break-up of outstanding Dues as on 31.7.2020 of the SC-02 Sector 150 was as follows:- S.NO Name of Builder Plot No. Total dues as per Lease deed

14. M/S LOTUS GREEN CONSTRUCTIONPVT LDT. SC-02/A/150 M/S LAND KART BUILDERS PVT LDT. SC-02/A1/150 M/S BUILDWALL BUILDERS PVT LDT. SC-02/A2/150 M/S STROUNG BIZ PROP BUILD PVT LDT. SC-02/A7/150 M/S WISHLAND BUILDZONE PVT LDT. SC-02/A8/150 M/S WONDEOUS BUILDMART PVT LDT. SC-02/A9/150 M/S ESCARPMENT BUILDCRAFT PVT LDT. SC-02/A10/150 M/S ELATE REALTORS PVT LDT. SC-02/B/150 M/S SAMRIDHI BUILDMART PVT LDT. SC-02/E/150 M/S BRICK RISE DEVELOPER PVT.LTD. SC-02/H&I/150 M/S FESTHOME DEVELOPER PVT. LTD SC-02/J&K/150 M/S BRICK TOWN DEVELOPERS PVT LDT. SC-02/A6/150 M/S VILLA STONE PROPBUILD PVT. LTD. SC-02/N/150 M/S ACE INFRACITY DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD SC-02/G/150

173.25

32.05

111.34

35.22

84.38

51.36

160.81

170.43

50.4

44.79

21.8

60.25

19.4

22.52 43 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

17. M/S ACE INFRACITY DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD SC-02/F/150 M/S ALLUURE DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD. SC-02/C/150 M/S NYMPHES INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. SC-02/L/150

14.15

94.58

68.41 TOTAL 1,215.14

66. This outstanding as on 31.7.2020 of all the allottees of SC-02/150 was Rs.1,215.14 crores, upon adding the contractual rate of interest, the outstanding till January 2025 will be more then 2,700 crores.

67. He further submitted that the way, the provisions of the lease deed and the conditions of the scheme in the brochure were modified/ changed, was quite questionable. It is only after change of the State Government, the scam was unearthed, and the audit report was referred to the CAG. The State Government took a very proactive stand and did not grant any extension or revalidation of map because of the illegality done by the allottees. CHANGE IN SHAREHOLDINGS OF VARIOUS COMPANIES

68. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Advocate submitted that as per the ROC the share holdings of the allottee company has changed after the allotment, though the same was not permissible in the scheme and the brochure. This was done without the permission of the Noida authority .

69. He further submitted that the sports city SC 02/150 was not being developed as per the brochure conditions and the terms of the lease deed. 44 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. The allottee has extensively violated the terms and conditions, hence he is not entitled for any relief.

70. The petitioners had already availed the benefit of zero period and they are not entitled for any further reliefs. The possession of the land was given along with the allotment letter, the petitioners had the possession and they had started construction of the residential part after the map approval. How can the residential part be constructed when there was no infrastructural facility or the land was encroached. He, therefore, submitted that the plea of encroachment has only been raised by the petitioners, just to avoid payment of dues and to complete their part of obligations. FURTHER ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONERS

71. In response to the above submissions, Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that PAC, which was already looking into the matter, has resolved the issue. Accordingly, an application was also filed to the effect that the issues have already been resolved by the PAC. He, therefore, sought for disposal of the writ petition in terms of the directions of the PAC. ANALYSIS BY THE COURT

72. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. With the able assistance, we have perused the pleadings, grounds taken in the petition, affidavits and annexures thereto and the reply filed by concerned parties.

73. The issues involved in this bunch of writ petition can be categorised into the following heads:- 45 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. A) Deviations in the Sports City Project. B) Illegal sale/ transfer of plots. C) Outstanding dues D) Illegal benefits to the allottees. E) Need for lifting of corporate veil F) Liabilities of the Original Allottee with regard to its subsidiaries G) Conduct of the petitioner H) Withdrawal of the Writ Petitions I) Scope of judicial interference J) Inquiry against the delinquent officer & and other conspirators by C.B.I. K) Conclusions DEVIATIONS

74. As per the terms of the Brochure of the Sports City, Clause 8 of the Eligibility conditions laid down the conditions for the allottee, in case they were applying as a Consortium. It specifically stated that members of consortium will have to specify one Lead Member, who would be the single largest shareholder having at least 30% share in the consortium. The shareholding of the lead member in the consortium shall remain at least 30% till the temporary occupancy/completion certificate of at least one phase of the project is obtained from the NOIDA.

75. However, on the date when the map was approved, the share of the lead member was less than 12% of the entire project. The sub-division of petitioners’ share was not possible under the Scheme, but in the present case, it has been done, which cannot be recognised by the Noida authority. The claim of the Lead member that the balance shares were allowed to be transferred, and were held in its subsidiary company, can only be substantiated, if they still hold 100% shares of the subsidiary 46 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. company. If the same has been diluted then the division would be patently illegal and contrary to the conditions of the sports city scheme/ project.

76. The NOIDA Authority has to look into this aspect and if the division is found contrary to the conditions of the scheme, then suitable penal action should immediately be taken against the allottee / lead member / petitioner. (I)FORMATION OF THE SCHEME

77. The way the scheme was formulated was also not upto the mark. The object of the scheme was for a proper development of the sports city, the division and sub-division of plots, and the transfer without the permission of NOIDA Authority, would not have been the part of the scheme as it was antithesis to its objects.

78. However, the lessee/Sub-lessee(s) were allowed to transfer upto 100% of its shareholding, subject to the only condition that the “Lead Member” (on the date of submission of the tender) shall continue to hold at least 30% of the shareholding in the SPC till the temporary occupancy/ completion certificate at least one phase of the project is obtained from NOIDA. In compliance with the Govt. Order No. 5007/11-5- 2010500(50)/10 DATED 11th October, 2010, issued by the Department of Tax & Registration, Government of Uttar Pradesh, the change in the name of shareholders does not amount to transfer of the property of the Company. The Change in Constitution Deed6 regarding change in the shareholders as a result of transfer of share in the Companies is not mandatory to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act,

1908. In addition to this, no stamp duty is leviable on this CIC deed under Clause 23 of Schedule 1b of the Stamp Act, 1899. No transfer charges

6. CIC 47 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. shall be leviable on the transfer of shares in the Companies and no prior approval of the NOIDA shall be required for transferring the shares. (II) APPROVAL OF THE BID

79. The bid was approved on the qualification of M/s Three C Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and the project was allotted to a company headed by M/s Lotus Green Construction Pvt. Ltd.. The company, on whose basis the project was allotted, was itself found missing. The project was allotted to the company,which was not even eligible to bid in individual capacity. The Consortium had nine members, out of which seven were incorporated after the scheme was declared, and all the seven companies were incorporated by the same set of promoters at the same address.

80. If we delve deep into the reason for incorporating new companies by the same person, it becomes quite clear that the promoters’ right from inception had the intention of transferring/ selling these companies to different entities. If that had not been the intention, there was no other reason to incorporate so many companies and get the allotment issued in their names.

81. Now the next question is why did the officials of the NOIDA Authority agree for such a division which was contrary to the scheme and the brochure, and specially, when the sports city was an integrated project. (III) FAILURE ON BEHALF OF NOIDA AUTHORITY

82. Such a scam of massive magnitude cannot happen without the involvement of officers of NOIDA Authority holding the key posts. The 48 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. offence was committed regularly for years and undue favours were extended to the allottees. It will not be wrong to say that all the officials, who were the decision makers, were involved from 2011 till date, were involved either directly or indirectly.

83. The officials on the key post of the NOIDA Authority kept their eyes closed, while the builders were selling and developing the residential apartments, but did not do anything towards the development of the sports facilities, which they were supposed to develop first. Purposely, a long rope were given to the builders to collect money from the homebuyers and after syphoning away the same, get the company into insolvency and walk away scot free.

84. Apparently, the Sports City in Sector 150 was allotted to a Consortium. All the Consortium Members including the Relevant Members, were the companies, which were incorporated after the scheme was floated and before the scheme was closed. The promoters in all the companies were Nirmal Singh, Vidur Bhardwaj and Surpreet Singh Suri. There was no reason for these three people to incorporate so many new companies as Relevant Members, unless and until, it was a pre-fabricated design to sell off these companies at a high premium without getting sports city allotted in their favour.

85. The mens rea of these promoters were apparent. After the allotment of the Sports City Project in their favour, their sole intention was to bifurcate the entire Sports City into various plots and sell it at very high premium to the builders at market price, whereas they had only paid 20% of the allotment money and chose not to pay the further dues. 49 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

86. Right from the day one the intention of the promoters was only to make money by selling the project to other companies and at the end the companies, which were supposed to develop the sports facilities, were pushed into insolvency.

87. The officers of NOIDA Authority, who were hand in glove with these promoters and subsequent purchasers, chose not to ask for the installments, whenever the same fell due. The intention of the promoters was never to develop the sports city, and that is why even when the maps were sanctioned, the obligation to develop all the sports facilities was kept with two or three companies and the rest of the companies were given benefit of developing the residential flats. The decision was such that the cream of this project was diverted to these smaller companies and all the liabilities to develop the sports facility were kept with two companies. Obviously, these two companies had no intention to develop the sports facilities.

88. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of judgments has held that in case of fraud and where there is need, the Court can pierce the corporate veil and see whether different juristic companies are held by same people or actually they are different juristic personality. In this case, it seems that in some companies the shareholdings have been transferred, but as per the sports city scheme and brochure, no transfer could have happened, unless and until the first phase of sports city is complete. Hence, any transfer done by the promoters of the sports city is invalid.

89. By piercing the corporate veil it is clear that both the Sports City Projects i.e SC-01/Sector 78 & & 79 and SC-02/Sector 150 have been allotted to same set of people. In the present case, haphazard construction has been carried out by various smaller companies, which are supposedly 50 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 100% subsidiaries of these promoters/companies. If this is a situation where the proposed sports city cannot be developed, then it is advisable that such sports facility may be developed in SC-01, Sector 78 & 79 and SC-02, Sector 150, NOIDA as both the sports cities have been allotted to the same developers/promoters. They cannot hide behind the smoke screen and mask themselves as different juristic personalities and the liabilities of other companies cannot be fastened on them. (B) ILLEGAL SALE

90. During the course of arguments, the petitioners have suggested that other reputed builders are ready to complete the project. This shows the malafide intention of the petitioners is just to sell away the project to other builders.

91. The intention of sports city was not to grant undue benefit to the allottee. The petitioners herein were also supposed to carry out construction of sports facility, which had to be completed within three years, whereas the residential flats were to be completed within seven years. The promoters had no intention for developing the sports facility. The promoters got the map sanctioned, and then launched the project and started booking flats and collected hundreds of crores of rupees from the homebuyers and did not even complete the residential project neither the sports facility. All the money was syphoned off and now after syphoning off the money, they want to further take undue advantage of the project by selling it off to various reputed builders and further make money.

92. Not only this, they have further chose not to pay the installments of NOIDA Authority and also want to take benefit of escalation of price of the project land by palming it off to other builders. 51 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

93. The petitioners cannot take advantage of arbitrage, wherein they get allotment done in their favour by paying part amount, then they do not complete construction of sports facility and the other obligations, which came with the allotment. The promoters have been illegally benefiting themselves in the following manner:- “(i) by getting almost 13 lakh sqm land against approved and assigned sports city scheme over 12 lakh sqm land. (ii) by not paying the dues of Noida Authority. (iii) by not completing the project in time. (iv) by collecting money from the homebuyers and not building the residential flats. (v) by bifurcating the entire sports city in such a way that liability of setting up the sports facility is only assigned to few companies whereas the other companies get the benefit of reaping profit by developing and selling the residential part of sports city. (vi) by taking advantage of price escalation of land and now by selling it off to various other builders at high premium.”

94. This Court cannot be a silent spectator of the fraud being played by the promoters in clear connivance with the officials of NOIDA Authority. The petitioners along with other builders have filed various writs in the year 2021, 2022 and while the petitions were pending, the PAC was formed in July 2023. Although, initially it was decided by the PAC not to touch the issues, which are pending before the High Court or NCLT, still it seems that PAC has granted them certain benefits and they wanted to negotiate the same. The same was not opposed by NOIDA Authority and NOIDA Authority also requested to extend the benefit to the builders. However, the State Government in its affidavit dated 19.11.2024 had made certain reservations on the imposition of recommendations of PAC. (C) OUTSTANDING DUES OF SPORTS CITIES

95. The total dues of the various Sports cities by their developers as on

31.07.2020 were as follows:- 52 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Serial No. i. ii. iii. Name of the developer Plot / sector Description of Dues ( IN CRORES) M/s Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd., Sector 78, 79 and 101 401.01 M/s Logix Infra developer Pvt. Ltd., SC-01/150

1685.74 M/s Three C Green Developers Sports city Pvt. Ltd. SC-02/150

1215.14 iv. M/s ATS Homes Pvt. Ltd., SC-01/152

609.18 Total outstanding Dues

3911.07

96. This outstanding, as on 31.7.2020, was Rs.3911.07 crores, with the contractual rate of interest till January 2025 the outstanding dues would be more than Rs.6300 crores.

97. The outstanding dues as on 31.7.2020 of various companies in Sports City SC-02 sector 150 was as follows:- S.No. Name of Builder Plot No. Total dues as per Lease deed

6. M/S LOTUS GREEN CONSTRUCTION PVT LDT. SC-02/A/150

173.25 M/S LAND KART BUILDERS PVT LDT. SC-02/A1/150

32.05 M/S BUILDWALL BUILDERS PVT LDT. SC-02/A2/150

111.34 M/S STROUNG BIZ PROP BUILD PVT LDT. SC-02/A7/150

35.22 M/S WISHLAND BUILDZONE PVT LDT. SC-02/A8/150

84.38 M/S WONDEOUS BUILDMART SC-02/A9/150

51.36 53 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

17. PVT LDT. M/S ESCARPMENT BUILDCRAFT PVT LDT. SC-02/A10/150

160.81 M/S ELATE REALTORS PVT LDT. SC-02/B/150

170.43 M/S SAMRIDHI BUILDMART PVT LDT. SC-02/E/150

50.4 M/S BRICK RISE DEVELOPER PVT.LTD. SC-02/H&I/150

44.79 M/S FESTHOME DEVELOPER PVT. LTD SC-02/J&K/150

21.8 M/S BRICK TOWN DEVELOPERS PVT LDT. SC-02/A6/150

60.25 M/S VILLA STONE PROPBUILD PVT. LTD. SC-02/N/150

19.4 M/S ACE INFRACITY DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD M/S ACE INFRACITY DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD SC-02/G/150 SC-02/F/150 M/S ALLUURE DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD. SC-02/C/150 M/S NYMPHES INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. SC-02/L/150

22.52

14.15

94.58

68.41 TOTAL 1,215.14

98. This outstanding as on 31.7.2020 of all the allottees of SC-02 /150 was Rs.1215.14 crores, with the contractual rate of interest and the outstanding till January 2025 will be more than Rs.2,700 crores. These 54 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. dues were not paid and shockingly, the officials of NOIDA Authority did not take any steps to recover the same.

99. All the companies gave an undertaking that they will complete their part of sports facilities within next three years, but the same was not carried out.

100. Looking into the market conditions, and the problems of the developers, the State of U.P. issued G.O. on 09.06.2020, whereby the interest applicable on the development projects were reduced. The G.O. reads as follows:- "महत्वपूण! संख्य आपत्तियाँा-1587/77-4-20-36 एन/20 आलोक कु मार, प्रमुख सधिचव, उ(cid:20)र प्रAे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श शासन। प्रे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग oक, से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग वा में भूखण्डों की मुख्य आपत्तियाँ काय आपत्तियाँ(cid:25)पालक अधि-कारी नौएडा, ग्रे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टर नौएडा, य आपत्तियाँमुना एक्सप्रे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग सवे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग य आपत्तियाँूपीसीडा, गीडा, लीडा, सीडा एवं डी०एम०आई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ०सी०-आई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ०आई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ०टी०जी०एन०एल०। उपय आपत्तियाँु औद्योटिगक टिवकास अनुभाग-4 टिवoय आपत्तियाँः औद्योटिगक टिवकास प्राधि-करर्ण हैों की में भूखण्डों की लागू ब्य आपत्तियाँाज Aरों की में भूखण्डों की कमी टिकए जाने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग संबं- में भूखण्डों की । महोAय आपत्तियाँ, लखनऊः टिAनांक 09 जून, 2020 (cid:25)क्त अन्य तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटीज का विकास ग्रुप टिवoय आपत्तियाँक अवगत कराना है टिक को योग्यधिवड से अधिक की धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।-19 महामारी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है। से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिनपटने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग त्तिलए एन.सी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।.आर. क्षेत्र के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तीन औद्योटिगक टिवकास प्राधि-करर्ण हैों की की सटिमधित द्वारा औद्योटिगक टिवकास प्राधि-करर्ण है में भूखण्डों की लागू ब्य आपत्तियाँाज Aरों की को कम करने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग की संस्तुधित की गय आपत्तियाँी है। 2. मुख्य आपत्तियाँ काय आपत्तियाँ(cid:25)पालक अधि-कारी ग्रे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टर नौएडा एवं य आपत्तियाँमुना एक्सप्रे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग सवे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग औद्योटिगक टिवकास प्राधि-करर्ण है द्वारा की गय आपत्तियाँी संस्तुधित पर सम्य आपत्तियाँक टिवचारोपरान्त सभी औद्योटिगक टिवकास प्राधि-करर्ण हैों की को टिनम्नवत परामश(cid:25) टिAय आपत्तियाँा जाता है- I. तीन वo(cid:25) की अवधि- के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ऋर्ण है हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु एस०बी०आई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ० के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग एम०सी०एल०आर० Aर पर प्रशासटिनक व्य आपत्तियाँय आपत्तियाँ 1.00 प्रधितशत को शाटिमल करते कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हुए अगले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग 0.5 प्रधितशत के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग स्तर तक Round off करते कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हुए ब्य आपत्तियाँाज Aरें भूखण्डों की लागू की जाए। उक्त अन्य तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटीज का विकास ग्रुप फामू (cid:25)ले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अनुसार प्रत्य आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग क वo(cid:25) में भूखण्डों की 01 जनवरी और 01 जुलाई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ को ब्य आपत्तियाँाज Aरें भूखण्डों की पुनर्निन-ारिरत की जाए। II. समय आपत्तियाँ से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग Aे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग य आपत्तियाँों की के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग भुगतान को प्रोत्साटिहत करने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग उद्दे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श्य आपत्तियाँ से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग धिडफॉल्ट -नराशि वसूल कर ली गयी है। स्पोर्ट्सश पर धिडफॉल्ट अवधि- हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु Aण्ड ब्य आपत्तियाँाज Aर 03 प्रधितशत (प्रत्य आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग क 06 माह में भूखण्डों की कम्पाउडिंडग करते कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हुए) लागू की जाए। III. उपय आपत्तियाँु (cid:25)क्त अन्य तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटीज का विकास ग्रुप Aरें भूखण्डों की आगामी प्रभाव से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ही लागू की जाए ना टिक भूतलक्षी प्रभाव से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग । IV. एस०बी०आई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ० पी०एल०आर० पर आबंटिटत परिरसम्पत्ति(cid:20)य आपत्तियाँों की के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग त्तिलए उनके कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग आवे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग Aन पत्र/ लीज डीड उसिल्लत्तिखत शतE के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अनुसार ब्य आपत्तियाँाज Aर Aे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग य आपत्तियाँ होगा। इस सम्बन्- में भूखण्डों की मुझे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग य आपत्तियाँह कहने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग का टिनAeश हुआ है टिक कृ पय आपत्तियाँा उपय आपत्तियाँु (cid:25)क्त अन्य तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटीज का विकास ग्रुपानुसार आवश्य आपत्तियाँक

3. काय आपत्तियाँ(cid:25)वाही सुटिनधि{त करने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग का कO करें भूखण्डों की । 55 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. भवAीय आपत्तियाँ ह० अपठनीय आपत्तियाँ (आलोक कु मार) प्रमुख सधिचव।" D) ILLEGAL BENEFITS TO THE ALLOTTEES

101. In reference to Government order. dated 09.06.2020, the Noida Authority issued an Office Order on 01.07.2020, wherein rate of interest was reduced to 8.5% but the Group Housing Projects were excluded. The order is quoted hereunder :- "नवीन ओखला औद्योटिगक टिवकास प्राधि-करर्ण है मुख्य आपत्तियाँ प्रशासटिनक भवन से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग क्टर-6, नौएडा गौतम बुZ नगर प# रांकः नो योग्यएड से अधिक की धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।ा/धिव०धिन०/2020/3471 दि(cid:2)नांकः 01/07/2020 काय आपत्तियाँा(cid:25)लय आपत्तियाँ आAे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श प्रमुख सधिचव, औद्योटिगक टिवकास अनुभाग-4, उ(cid:20)र प्रAे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श शासन, लखनऊ के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग पत्र संख्य आपत्तियाँाः 1567/77-4-20-36 एन/20 टिAनांक 09 जून, 2020 के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग क्रम में भूखण्डों की 01 जुलाई, 2020 से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ब्य आपत्तियाँाज Aरें भूखण्डों की पुनर्निन-ारिरत टिकय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग जाने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग सम्बन्- में भूखण्डों की प्राधि-करर्ण है द्वारा पूव(cid:25) में भूखण्डों की काय आपत्तियाँा(cid:25)लय आपत्तियाँ आAे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श संख्य आपत्तियाँाः नौएडा/ मु०का०अ०/2020/3464 टिAनांक 25.06.2020 जारी टिकय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा था। धिदनांक 01 जुलाई, 2020 को स्टे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ट बैंक ऑफ इंधिडय आपत्तियाँा की Aरों की के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अनुसार ब्य आपत्तियाँाज Aरें भूखण्डों की टिनम्नानुसार हैं - 1. #ी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।न वo(cid:25) की अवधि- के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ऋर्ण है हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु एस०बी०आई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ० के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग एम०सी०एल०आर० Aर टिAनांक 01 जुलाई, 2020 को 7.30 प्रधितशत है, सिजस पर प्रशासटिनक व्य आपत्तियाँय आपत्तियाँ 1 प्रधितशत शाटिमल करते कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हुए अगले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग 0.5 प्रधितशत के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग स्तर तक Round off करने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग पर 8.50 प्रधितशत आगशि वसूल कर ली गयी है। स्पोर्ट्सर्ण हैत होता है। 2. समय आपत्तियाँ से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग Aे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग य आपत्तियाँों की को भुगतान को प्रोत्साटिहत करने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग उद्दे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श्य आपत्तियाँ से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग धिडफाल्ट -नराशि वसूल कर ली गयी है। स्पोर्ट्सश पर धिडफाल्ट अवधि- हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु Aण्ड ब्य आपत्तियाँाज Aर 3 प्रधितशत (प्रत्य आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग क 06 माह में भूखण्डों की कम्पाउडिंडग करते कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हु ए) लागू की जाय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग । अतः प्राधि-करर्ण है की सभी सम्पत्ति(cid:20)य आपत्तियाँों की के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग समस्त Aे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग य आपत्तियाँों की पर (ग्रुप हाउसिंसग को छ लैण्ड पार्सल का कब्जा नही दिया गया है। कब्जा दिलवाया जाये।ोड़ की देनदारी है।कर) उपरोक्त अन्य तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटीज का विकास ग्रुप शतE के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अनुसार ब्य आपत्तियाँाज Aर 8.50 प रधितशत टिAनांक 01 जुलाई, 2020 से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग लागू टिकय आपत्तियाँा जाता है, जो टिAनांक 31 धिदसम्बर, 2020 तक लागू रहे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग गा। मा० सव|च्च न्य आपत्तियाँाय आपत्तियाँालय आपत्तियाँ में भूखण्डों की Aाय आपत्तियाँर रिरट य आपत्तियाँाधिचका संख्य आपत्तियाँा 940/2017 में भूखण्डों की य आपत्तियाँोसिजत I.A. संख्या 49139 में भूखण्डों की Clarification आने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग उपरान्त ग्रुप हाउसिंसग के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग सम्बन्- में भूखण्डों की टिनर्ण है(cid:25)य आपत्तियाँ त्तिलय आपत्तियाँा जाय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग गा। 01 जनवरी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।, 2021 को स्टे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ट बैंक ऑफ इंधिडय आपत्तियाँा के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग MCLR के अनुसार पुनः Aरें भूखण्डों की टिन-ा(cid:25)रिरत की जाय आपत्तियाँें भूखण्डों की गी। ह० अपठनीय आपत्तियाँ (धिरतु माहे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श्वरी) मुख्य आपत्तियाँ काय आपत्तियाँ(cid:25)पालक अधि-कारी"

102. Thereafter on 05.01.2021, the Noida Authority had issued a fresh Office Order, whereby it was made clear that the benefit of the reduced rate of interest of 8.5% would not be applicable to the group housing and 56 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. sports city projects. The letter dated 05.01.2021 is quoted below for ready reference :- "नवीन ओखला औद्योटिगक टिवकास प्राधि-करर्ण है मुख्य आपत्तियाँ प्रशासटिनक भवन से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग क्टर-6, नौएडा गौतम बुZ नगर पत्रांकः नो योग्यएड से अधिक की धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।ा/धिव०धिन०/2021/09 धिदनांकः 05/01/2021 काय आपत्तियाँा(cid:25)लय आपत्तियाँ आAे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श प्रमुख सधिचव, औद्योटिगक टिवकास अनुभाग प्रमाण -4, उ(cid:20)र प्रAे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श शासन, लखनऊ के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग पत्र संख्य आपत्तियाँाः 1567/77-4-20-36एन/20 धिदनांक 09 जून, 2020 के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग क्रम में भूखण्डों की प्राधि-करर्ण है द्वारा काय आपत्तियाँा(cid:25)लय आपत्तियाँ आAे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श संख्य आपत्तियाँाः नौएड से अधिक की धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।ा/धिव०धिन०/2020/3471 धिदनांक 01.07.2020 के द्वारा स्टे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ट बैंक आफ इंधिडय आपत्तियाँा की Aरों की के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अनुसार ब्य आपत्तियाँाज Aरें भूखण्डों की टिनम्नानुसार टिन-ा(cid:25)रिरत की गई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ थी-

1. 3 वo(cid:25) की अवधि- के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ऋर्ण है हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु एस०बी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।०आई० के एम०सी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।०एल०आर० दर धिदनांक 01 जुलाई, 2020 को योग्य 7.30 प रधि#(cid:24)# है, सिजस पर प्रशासटिनक व्य आपत्तियाँय आपत्तियाँ 1 प्रधितशत शाटिमल करते कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हुएे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अग प्रमाण ले 0.5 प रधि#(cid:24)# के स्#र #क Round off करने पर 8.50 प रधि#(cid:24)# आग प्रमाण धिण# हो योग्य#ा है। 2. समय आपत्तियाँ से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग Aे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग य आपत्तियाँों की को भुगतान को प्रोत्साटिहत करने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग उद्दे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श्य आपत्तियाँ से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग धिडफाल्ट -नराशि वसूल कर ली गयी है। स्पोर्ट्सश पर धिडफाल्ट अवधि- हे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग तु Aण्ड ब्य आपत्तियाँाज Aर 3 प रधि#(cid:24)# (प रत्येक 06 माह में भूखण्डों की कम्पाउडिंडग करते कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हुए) लागू की जाय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग । अतः प्राधि-करर्ण है की सभी सम्पत्ति(cid:20)य आपत्तियाँों की के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग समस्त Aे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग य आपत्तियाँों की पर ( ग्रुप हाउसिंसग स्पोट(cid:25) सिसटी को छ लैण्ड पार्सल का कब्जा नही दिया गया है। कब्जा दिलवाया जाये।ोड़ की देनदारी है।कर) उपरोक्त अन्य तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटीज का विकास ग्रुप शतE के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अनुसार ब्य आपत्तियाँाज Aर 8.50 प्रधितशत ही टिAनांक 01 जनवरी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।, 2021 से धिदनांक 30 जून, 2021 #क लाग प्रमाण ू रहेग प्रमाण ी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।। ग्रुप हाउसिंसग/स्पोट(cid:25) सिसटी की ब्य आपत्तियाँाज Aरों की के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग सम्बन्- में भूखण्डों की टिनर्ण है(cid:25)य आपत्तियाँ मा० सव|च्च न्य आपत्तियाँाय आपत्तियाँालय आपत्तियाँ में भूखण्डों की य आपत्तियाँोसिजत रिरट य आपत्तियाँाधिचका के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अंधितम टिनर्ण है(cid:25)य आपत्तियाँ के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग प{ातu त्तिलय आपत्तियाँा जाय आपत्तियाँे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग गा। 01 जुलाई, 2021 को स्टे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ट बैंक आफ इंधिडय आपत्तियाँा के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग एम०सी०एल०आर० के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अनुसार पुनः Aरें भूखण्डों की टिन-ा(cid:25)रिरत की जाय आपत्तियाँें भूखण्डों की गी। ह० अपठनीय आपत्तियाँ (रिरतु माहे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श्वरी) मुख्य आपत्तियाँ काय आपत्तियाँ(cid:25)पालक अधि-कारी"

103. However, the officials of the NOIDA Authority, who were in collusion and were bent upon granting undue favours to the builders/developers of the Sports City, in contravention to its own office orders, and contrary to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court, issued a notice on 27.03.2023 illegally extending the benefit of Government order dated 09.06.2020 to one of the allottee. The letter dated 27.03.2023 is reproduced below:- "नवीन मुख्य आपत्तियाँ ओखला प्रशासटिनक औद्योटिगक भवन टिवकास प्राधि-करर्ण है -6, नौएड से अधिक की धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।ा सैक्टर पत्र संख्य आपत्तियाँा नौएड से अधिक की धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।ा/स्पो योग्यट! धिसटी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।/2023/2944 धिदनांकः 27/3/23 57 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. M/s Elate Realtors Pvt. Ltd. D-107, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi नोटिटस के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अन्तग(cid:25)त आबंधिट# / उपधिवभाधिज# भूखण्ड संख्य आपत्तियाँा टिवoय आपत्तियाँः- स्पोट(cid:25) एस०सी सिसटी य आपत्तियाँोजना -150 में भूखण्डों की । सैक्टर के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग संबं- ० -02/B, कृ पय आपत्तियाँा स्पोट(cid:25) सिसटी य आपत्तियाँोजना के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अन्तग(cid:25)त आवंधिट#/उपधिवभाधिज# उक्त अन्य तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटीज का विकास ग्रुप भूखण्ड का आवंटन/उपधिवभाजन आपके कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग पक्ष में भूखण्डों की टिकय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा एवं पट टा प रलेख धिदनांक 19.12.2014 को आपके कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग पक्ष में भूखण्डों की टिनष्पाटिAत टिकय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा है। आवंटन पत्र/उप टिवभाजन प# र/पट टा प रलेख/उप पट टा प्रले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ख में भूखण्डों की इंटिगत पे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग में भूखण्डों की ट शे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग डय आपत्तियाँूल के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अनुसार आपको टिकश्तों की की मA में भूखण्डों की Aे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग य आपत्तियाँ -नराशि वसूल कर ली गयी है। स्पोर्ट्सश एवं भू-भाटक का भुगतान करना था, टिकन्तु आपके कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग द्वारा टिनय आपत्तियाँत अवधि- में भूखण्डों की -नराशि वसूल कर ली गयी है। स्पोर्ट्सश का भुगतान नहीं किये। टिकय आपत्तियाँा गय आपत्तियाँा है जो आवंटन की शतE तथा पट्टा प्रले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ख/उप पट्टा प्रले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ख की शतE का उल्लंघन है। वत(cid:25)मान में भूखण्डों की उक्त अन्य तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटीज का विकास ग्रुप भूखण्ड के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिवरूZ धिदनांक 31.03.2023 तक टिवशि वसूल कर ली गयी है। स्पोर्ट्सभन्न मAों की में भूखण्डों की अधितAे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग य आपत्तियाँ -नराशि वसूल कर ली गयी है। स्पोर्ट्सश का टिववरर्ण है टिनम्नवतu हैः- 1 रू०-283,69,89,418/- धिकश्#/ब्याज 2 भू-भाटक/ब्याज रू०-41,77,99,867/- रू०-325,47,89,285/- कु ल पट्टा प्रले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ख/उप पट्टा प्रले कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग ख में भूखण्डों की उसिल्लत्तिखत प्राटिव-ानों की के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अनुसार समय आपत्तियाँवृधिZ शुल्क Aे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग य आपत्तियाँ होगा। मा० सव|च्च न्य आपत्तियाँाय आपत्तियाँालय आपत्तियाँ में भूखण्डों की य आपत्तियाँोसिजत Writ Petition (Civil) No 940 of 2017 Bikram Chatterji and Others v/s Union of India & Others में भूखण्डों की मा० सव|च्च न्य आपत्तियाँाय आपत्तियाँालय आपत्तियाँ द्वारा टिAनांक 07.11.2022 को पारिरत आAे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श एवं उ(cid:20)र प्रAे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श शासन द्वारा जारी आAे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श टिAनांक 09.06.2020 के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग क्रम में भूखण्डों की जारी काय आपत्तियाँा(cid:25)लय आपत्तियाँ आAे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग श संख्य आपत्तियाँा 915 टिAनांक 17.11.2022 के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अनुपालन में भूखण्डों की टिAनांक 01.07.2020 से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग एम०सी०एल०आर० Aरों की के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अनुसार उपरोक्त अन्य तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटीज का विकास ग्रुप गर्ण हैना की गई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ है। अतः इस नोटिटस के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग माध्य आपत्तियाँम से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग आपको सूधिचत टिकय आपत्तियाँा जाता है टिक भूखण्ड के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग टिवरूZ Aे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग य आपत्तियाँता का भुगतान इस पत्र के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग जारी होने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग की धितशि वसूल कर ली गयी है। स्पोर्ट्सथ से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग 15 टिAन के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग अन्Aर करना सुटिनधि{त करें भूखण्डों की । अन्य आपत्तियाँ कोई गई मुख्य आपत्तियाँ टिवधि-क अड़ की देनदारी है।चन ना होने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग की Aशा में भूखण्डों की य आपत्तियाँटिA आपके कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग द्वारा टिन-ा(cid:25)रिरत अवधि- में भूखण्डों की Aे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग य आपत्तियाँो का भुगतान नौएडा प्राधि-करर्ण है को नहीं किये। टिकय आपत्तियाँा जाता है तो टिनय आपत्तियाँमानुसार आवंटन टिनरस्त करने कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग की काय आपत्तियाँ(cid:25)वाही की जाएगी। नोटः- भूटिम प्रधितकर के कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग मA में भूखण्डों की 64.7 प्रधितशत अधितरिरक्त अन्य तीन स्पोर्ट्स सिटीज का विकास ग्रुप प्रधितकर की गर्ण हैना करते कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग हुए पृथक से कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग इसकी माँग भे कारण प्राधिकरण को लगभग जी जा रहा हैं। ह० अपठनीय आपत्तियाँ धिव(cid:24)ेष काया!धि(cid:21)कारी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।/सहायक महाप्रबं(cid:21)क (स्पो योग्यट! धिसटी धनराशि व्यय की जा चुकी है।)”

104. The reason given by the NOIDA Authority to extend the undue favour was based upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bikram Chatterji and others vs. Union of India and others7. This reason is thoroughly misplaced and illegal as Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bikram Chaterji (supra) in paragraphs 14, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24 of the judgment dated 7/11/2022 has held as follows:- 7 (2019) 19 SCC 161 58 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. “14. In these proceedings we are principally concerned with the plight of flat holders of Amrapali Group of Companies. In order to see that the projects do not remain stalled and the investment made by all the flat buyers comes out of cloud of uncertainty, certain measures were adopted by this Court in its order dated 23.07.2019. Those measures contemplated restriction on the Noida and Greater Noida Authorities to resume the properties in question, as well as, cancellation of lease deed granted in favour of Amrapali Group of Companies and vesting all the rights in favour of the Court Receiver and NBCC was appointed to complete various projects. These directions were passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances in Amrapali Projects. It was in light of these directions that one of the issues which came up for consideration before the Court related to reduction in rate of interest. The dues payable to Noida or Greater Noida in respect of projects of Amrapali Group of Companies would otherwise have been liable to pay along with interest at certain rates. Since that would have put additional burden on the entire project, it was deemed appropriate to consider reduction in rate of interest. x x x x

17. Around this time a decision was taken by the State Government on 09.06.2020 giving reduction in interest rates generally to all builders pertaining to all projects. However, this court was not aware of the order dated 09.06.2020 when the order was pronounced on 10.06.2020 in the matter reserved earlier. It is true that though it was completely beyond the scope of instant matters to consider the cases of other builders, this Court did to consider the case of builders such as ACE group of companies and the matter was dealt with in its order dated 10.06.2020. However, at that juncture it was not known to this court that huge amount running into more than Rs. 3000 – 4000 crores for Noida and Greater Noida Authorities, would be in issue.

18. As a result of the orders passed by this court the builders are now asking for adjustment of whatever they had paid earlier and in certain cases they are even demanding refund of the amount paid in excess. In every case, the concerned builder had opted for allocation of plot on the basis of brochure which had clearly indicated the rate of interest. The allotment letter and consequential lease deed carried the same intent. Thus, every builder was well aware and had entered into transaction with Noida and Greater Noida Authorities with open eyes. Whatever was the impact on account of that rate of interest must have been subsumed in the price which was arrived at and had to be paid by every flat holder. x x x x

20. If even in normal circumstances, the interference with contractual terms is not easily to be taken resort to, it does not stand to reason that in 59 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. a matter with which this court was not even concerned, the benefit could be extended to the entire body of builders of Noida and Greater Noida. Reference made to a number of stalled projects including some of the projects of the builders who are presently before us, cannot be taken as an indication that the benefits which were to be extended to the flat buyers from Amrapali Group of Companies must also be extended to the flat buyers to the other projects from Noida or Greater Noida. x x x x

23. In conclusion, we must say that this Court erred in granting relief to projects other than Amrapali Group of Companies vide its orders dated 10.06.2020, 19.08.2020 and 25.08.2020.

24. Consequently, the instant applications are allowed and the orders dated 10.6.2020, 19.8.2020 and 25.8.2020 are recalled, as prayed. The Noida and Greater Noida Authorities are directed to calculate the amount due in respect of builders other than Amrapali Group of Companies after taking into consideration the effect of the order dated 09.06.2020 issued by the State Government.” (Emphasis supplied)

105. The Noida Authority was a party in the aforesaid matter. In fact, the officials of Noida Authority were well aware of the judgment dated

07.11.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The benefit of Government Order dated 9.6.2020 was only for the lessees other then group housing and Sports city. This was clarified by the Noida Authority vide its order dated 5.1.2021 wherein it was made clear that the benefit of the Government order dated 9.6.2020 would not be extended to the group housing projects, and for the Sports city projects. Shockingly still, the Noida Authority issued the notice on 27.03.2023 granting benefit of the Government order dated 09.06.2020 to the allottees of the Sports City Projects. This benefit granted to the developer was contrary to the aforesaid Office Order of NOIDA dated 27.03.2023 as well as judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bikram Chatterji (supra). 60 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

106. What is shocking is that Noida Authority itself was before Hon’ble Supreme Court as a party and Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated

07.09.2022 has clarified that benefit of the Government order dated

09.06.2020 would not be applicable on other builders and they will be obliged to pay the contractual dues. The officers of Noida Authority, who were well aware of this judgment as well as their own office order, still wanted to extend the benefit to the petitioners.

107. It is shocking to see that the officers of Noida Authority are working contrary to their own Office Orders and also contrary to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, just to grant undue benefit to the developers/builders. F) NEED FOR LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL

108. Now the question before this Court is whether a company, which gets two sports city allotted in the name of different subsidiary companies; gets lease deed executed in the name of various subsidiary companies, sells them off, makes a huge profit, does not pay the authority the dues, gets the liability of developing the sports facility in one or two company, does not develop it and push the company into insolvency, be liable for the obligations of the subsidiary/sister company? Whether all these companies incorporated for the development of the sports city be treated as a single concern, as they have a common ownership and a common control, their share holdings at the time of allotment were held by the same entity, the same promoters in the most of the members, they had a unified management, common directors, having the same aligned business practices, with operational engagements in collaborative projects that blur the lines between the entities, with interrelated transactions, with 61 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. strategic alignment, with common business strategies, similar marketing strategies, common customer basses, with a coordinated approach to business. With shared business plans, with the common aligned business of the companies, reflects a common control as the promoters and ownership remains the same. Here all the subsidiaries are inextricably inter-linked corporate entities. incorporated by the promoters as a mere cloak or sham and in truth the business was being carried on by same set of people and not by the company as a separate entity.

109. In such cases, this Court can always lift the corporate veil, and see behind as to who is the real beneficiary. In this case, it is evident that all the companies were incorporated and promoted by same three people. Even the shareholding were with them or the companies were closely held by them and they are liable for the acts and omissions of its subsidiary. G) LIABILITY OF THE ORIGINAL ALLOTTEE WITH REGARD TO ITS SUBSIDIARIES ENGLISH LAW

110. As per the English law The basic feature of a company is that, it is a separate legal entity with distinct legal personality. In this fast changing economic world it is inherent that problems with regard to concept of liability of parent company towards subsidiary company would arise.

111. The liability of the parent company towards its subsidiaries were analysed by the House of Lords in the case of Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd.8, which was further approved in Adams v Cape Industries Plc9. 8 9 (1897) AC 22 (1990) Ch 433 62 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

112. The Court discussed the issue of corporate personality in this case and the court gave a greater thrust to exceptions laid down in the Salomon’s case with regard to the liability of parent company. This paved way to the beginning of creation of the concept of group liability. Several terms are used to denote the relationship between a subsidiary company and parent company. The words like holding companies or subsidiaries, dominant influence etc Lifting of corporate veil is the most commonly used concept in cases relating to group liability. It was for the very first time English law dealt with the concept of group liability, though it is not specified in any law.

113. For this purpose the Courts have gone to the extent of creating various exceptions such as sham transactions to avoid liabilities by creating a facade or a sham to distinguish as a separate legal entity. The piercing of the corporate veil can be carried out to identify if the company is a mere facade, or the subsidiary is an agent of the parent company.

114. When a company holds more than 50% shares of a company and has control over the company then it is a subsidiary company. The subsidiary companies could be incorporated for so many reasons, at times they are formed to create a smoke screen for the illegal activities of the parent company, or to conceal the true facts or to perpetuate fraud or for any manipulative circumstances. Whenever the court comes across with such a situation, the usual phenomenon is to lift the corporate veil to decide on the liability.

115. The exception of sham or fraud was developed by the Courts in the following cases :- (I). Gilford Motor Co v. Horne [1933] Ch 935. In Jones v. Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832 . Russell J. refused to recognise the separate 63 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. corporate entity of the company under the circumstances of the case to make the defendant as well as the company liable for the specific performance of the contract. (ii). Smith, Stone & Knight Ltd v Birmingham Corp . [1939] 4 All ER 116 , (iii). DHN Food Distributors Ltd v. London Borough of Tower Hamlets [1976] 1 WLR 852 Lord Denning put forward the need to treat a group of companies as one since in reality it works like a single economic en- tity. Pioneer Concrete Services v.Yelnah Pty Ltd (iv) In the New South Wales case of Pioneer Concrete Services v. Yelnah Pty Ltd [20] Young J. considered the authorities and held that the veil should only be lifted where there was in law or in fact a partnership between the companies, or where there was a sham or façade.

116. The court felt the need to develop the concept of enterprise liability, with piercing the corporate veil, to bring liability to the parent corporation for subsidiary’s action. INDIAN LAW

117. This doctrine was followed in India by the Indian Court in the following cases:-

118. In State of U.P. v. Renusagar Power Co. and Ors.10 the Supreme Court held that it was clear that Hindalco completely controlled its wholly owned subsidiary Renusagar, including its day-to-day affairs. Renusagar did not indicate any independent volition. Thus, the Court was of the opinion that the corporate veil should be lifted and Hindalco and Renusagar should be treated as one concern. Hence, it was held that Renusagar’s power plant was Hindalco’s own source of generation and was liable to duty on that basis. 10 1988 (4) SCC 59 64 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

119. The Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corpn of India v. Escorts Ltd. & Ors.11 had emphasized that the corporate veil should be lifted where the associated companies were inextricably connected and appeared as a single concern/entity, the corporate veil should be lifted. The Apex Court further observed that this was contingent on the relevant statutory provisions, intent, the extent of involvement of public interest, and the effect on parties.

120. The Hon’ble supreme Court in the matter of Vodafone International Holdings BV Vs. Union of India and Another12 {(2012) 6 Supreme Court Cases 613} held as follws:-

259. The U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Bestfoods 524 US 51 (1998) explained that it is a general principle of corporate law and legal systems that a parent corporation is not liable for the acts of its subsidiary, but the Court went on to explain that corporate veil can be pierced and the parent company can be held liable for the conduct of its subsidiary, if the corporal form is misused to accomplish certain wrongful purposes, when the parent company is directly a participant in the wrong complained of. Mere ownership, parental control, management etc. of a subsidiary is not sufficient to pierce the status of their relationship and, to hold parent company liable. In Adams v. Cape Industries Plc. (1991) 1 All ER 929, the Court of Appeal emphasized that it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil where special circumstances exist indicating that it is mere fagade concealing true facts. “

121. Hon’ble Madras High Court in the matter of Small Industries Development Bank of Indian v. Creation Investments Equitas Holdings LLC (in OA 1137 of 2019 decided on 6.10.2020), upheld that the holding company and the subsidiary are distinct entities and that the holding company does not own the subsidiary’s assets. However, in this case, both the holding company and the subsidiary were dissolved to avoid legal ramifications. Not only they were the entities one and the same, they 11 12 (1985) Suppl. 3 SCR 909 (2012) 6 Supreme Court Cases 613 65 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. were, also operated by the same person. The sole purpose of the person, who created such companies, was to defeat the rights of the parties outside the countries. Therefore, the Court held that principles laid down in the Vodafone judgment could not be applied to defeat the rights and encourage fraudulent activities.

122. The question which arises here is when will the Original Allottee/Consortium be held liable for the actions of its subsidiaries?

123. The answer is that although it is a settled legal position that a subsidiary is a separate legal entity and is different from its holding/parent company. However, the holding companies and its subsidiary cannot take a shelter under the legal position that they are two distinct legal entities when, the company is the creature of the group, formed in an attempt to avoid recognition by the eye of law, merely to mask the real entities and to cover the business which is actually being carried out by the same set of people. Then the Court can always lift the corporate veil, and hold the holding company liable for the acts and omissions of its subsidiary.

124. From the above ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court it is evident that a Consortium Member/Original Allottee (parent company) can be held responsible for the wrong done by its subsidiary companies, especially when the same is done, as a part of a sham transaction, just to avoid the liability of the parent company. Here as a part of the greater design all the liability/ responsibility is transferred to a 100% subsidiary company which was never completed and all the profit / cream of the project was subdivided into smaller companies and was, sold off at a very high premium. The entire façade of subsidiary companies were created only to defraud the other stake holders. Hence, it will be not wrong to fasten the liabilities of the subsidiary companies onto the parent company. 66 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. H) CONDUCT OF THE PETITIONERS

125. It is a matter of record that this Court had heard the matter at length on various dates i.e. 15.07.2021, 31.08.2021, 16.10.2023, 30.09.2024,

16.10.2024, 24.10.2024.

126. On 24.10.2024, this Court passed the following order:- “1. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rahul Sahai appears for the petitioner. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh appears for the contesting-respondent and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Mohan Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.

2. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Noida Authority has placed the communication dated 23.10.2024 sent by the Chief Executive Officer, Noida, which is taken on record.

3. Initially a counter affidavit dated 27.07.2023 was filed but seeing the communication dated 23.10.2024 further supplementary counter affidavit may be filed by the Noida Authority as well as the State Government. 4. Let the counsel for the Noida Authority as well as the State Government file response in the matter on or before the next date fixed.

5. On the joint request made by the parties, list this matter on 19.11.2024 at 2 PM along with connected matter.”

127. In response to the aforesaid, Noida Authority in its affidavit dated

18.11.2024, filed before the Court on 26.11.2024, has stated that PAC has cleared the objections raised by CAG on Sports City SC-02, Sector-150, NOIDA in the PAC meeting held on 29.08.2024. The relevant paras of the affidavit are as follows:- “3. That it is pertinent to mention here that the P.A.C. has cleared the objections raised by C.A.G. on Sports City SC-02, Sector-150, NOIDA, in the P.A.C. meeting held on 29.08.2024.

4. That the petitioner have submitted a revised Master Plan for the Sports City SC-02, Sector-150, Noida District-Gautam Budh Nagar 67 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. the Authority will examine the same once the Board clears the matter after the directions received by the State Government.

5. That the Authority placed the matter of Sports City SC-02, Sector- 150 before the 215th Board Meeting held on 26.10.2024.

6. That the matter was taken up for consideration by the Board. It was decided by the Board that as the matter pertains to the direction given by the P.A.C. the same can only be considered after directions are received from the State Government in the light of P.A.C. directions.”

128. On the other hand, State in its affidavit dated 19.11.2024, filed before the Court on 26.11.2024, has opposed the contention made by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. It has been clearly stated therein that in the present matter, it has been indicated that there was irregular allotment of the plot for Sports City, and irregular sub- division and also the Sports facilities were not developed in the Sports City till date. In the aforesaid perspectives, a comprehensive enquiry in the matter is required, which is being done. After enquiry/examination of the present matter, the proceeding/direction would be apprised to NOIDA Authority. The relevant para of the affidavit are as follows:- “4. That in this regard, it is respectfully apprised to the Hon’ble Court that the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Noida vide letter dated 14.11.2024 informed that in the 215th Board Meeting dated 26th October, 2024, the Proposal for plot number SC-02, Sector-150 was presented for perusal and necessary guidelines.

5. That the Sanchalak Mandal directed that after obtaining necessary guidelines and direction from the State Government the Proposal should be presented.

6. That in pursuance of the aforesaid direction of the Board, and with regard to the aforesaid letter of the Noida Authority dated 14.11.2024 and in compliance of the Hon’ble High Court order dated 24.10.2024 passed in the present writ petition No.15604 of 2021, the request has been made to the State Government for necessary direction to the concerned for undertaking desired steps/proceedings.

7. That it is pertinent to mention that in the present matter it has been indicated that there was irregular allotment of the plot for Sports City, 68 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. and irregular Sub-Division and also the Sports Facilities were not developed in the Sports City till the date. In the aforesaid perspectives, a comprehensive enquiry in the matter is required, which is being done. After enquiry/examination of the present matter the proceeding/direction would be apprised to Noida Authority.”

129. Thereafter, the matter was again heard on 19.11.2024, 21.11.2024,

25.11.2024 along with the other petitions.

130. After hearing both the parties, the judgment was reserved on

26.11.2024. The order dated 26.11.2024 is quoted hereunder:- “1. Heard Sri Syed Fahim Ahmed, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mohan Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh and Ms. Anjali Gokhlani, learned counsel for respondent -NOIDA.

2. Short counter affidavit filed by learned Standing Counsel and counter affidavit filed by Sri K.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent-NOIDA are taken on record.

3. Judgment reserved.”

131. Thereafter, a mention was made by learned counsels for the petitioners that certain aspects have not been argued by them and they want to address the same. Though the judgment was already reserved, but on their request, vide order dated 28.11.2024 the matter was again fixed for further hearing on 02.12.2024.

132. On the very next date, Sri Dhruv Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate, appeared and pressed an application for withdrawal of writ petition. The relief sought in the withdrawal application is quoted hereunder:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and permit the petitioner to withdraw the present writ petition at this stage. Otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. And/Or pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 69 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

133. The conduct of the petitioners is not appreciated at all. They have been playing fraud in the allotment, development of sports city. Emboldened with their success in defrauding Noida Authority, banks, homebuyers, now they have tried to play fraud on the Court as well. If the petitioners wanted to withdraw the petitions, they could have done it earlier in time, but after the judgment was reserved, this trick was played actually to avoid the judgment. I) WITHDRAWAL OF WRIT PETITIONS

134. Although, the petitioners have the right to withdraw their writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. This right is generally recognized to uphold the autonomy of the petitioners in legal proceedings.

135. While the petitioners can request withdrawal, the court has the discretion to allow or reject the withdrawal depending on the circumstances. If the withdrawal is sought after the court has taken significant steps in the case, the court may consider the implications before granting permission.

136. In sum and substance, a petitioner can withdraw a writ petition under Article 226, and the courts generally respect this right. However, the withdrawal is subject to the court's discretion, especially regarding any potential implications for justice or public interest. SCOPE OF JUDICIAL INTERVENTION

137. The crucial question, however, is whether such commercial contracts, which may stem from a Government Policy decision of Noida and the state government, are insulated from judicial review. 70 Writ C No.-15604 of 2021 along with connected petitions M/s Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

138. This issue is no longer res integra and there is no absolute bar, even in matters concerning contracts, on the maintainability of writ petitions. In such cases, the discretion lies with the Court as held in Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India13 which summarised the legal position on judicial review of contracts entered into by public authorities with private parties. Judicial review, being a dynamic process as opposed to static, has experienced a significant shift in terms of the degree of judicial interference in contractual disputes, especially when one of the parties involved is the State or its instrumentalities. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP © 33403 of 2016 (Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd Vs. Federation of Noida Residents Welfare Association & Ors.)14.

139. This is because when contractual power is exercised for public purposes, the State and its instrumentalities bear the responsibility to act fairly, without arbitrariness or caprice (Silpi Constructions Contractors Vs Union of India15). In such situations, courts are justified in intervening through judicial review to determine whether the State has adhered to the principles embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which mandates fairness and non-arbitrariness in State actions. The involvement of a public authority necessitates cognizance to ensure that the scheme/ Agreement upholds constitutional principles. In such scenarios, it becomes the solemn duty of the judiciary, entrusted under the Constitution as an independent arbiter, to intervene and protect the interests of the public at large.

140. Further, it is crucial to recognise that when a contract involving a State instrumentality like NOIDA, significantly impacting the public, the 13 14 15