Omaxe Buildhome Ltd.Thru. Authorized Signatory Sri Quazi Sayeed Ur Rehman v. State Of U.P. Thru. Infrastructure And Industrial Development Commissioner Lko. And 2 Others

1. Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhishek Khare, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Surendra Kumar Singh, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Waseeq Uddin Ahmad, the learned counsel the opposite party no.3/New Okhla Industrial Development Authority.

2. The learned counsel for the opposite parties have stated that they have written instructions in the matter and they will advance submissions in the present case without filing any counter affidavit.

3. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India the petitioner has made following prayers: "I. Issue the writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the Respondent No.1 in Statutory Revision Petition bearing no.3043/77-4- 2024/Appeal 94/23 in Re:- M/s Omaxe Buildhome Ltd. v. NOIDA to the extent it does not exempt the imposition of lease rent for the period of operation of status quo order of the Hon'ble NGT i.e.

14.08.2013 till 19.08.2015 which has been declared as zero-period 2 WRIC No. 9523 of 2025 by Respondent No.1 as contained in Annexure No.1 to this Writ Petition; II. Issue a writ/ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to not to impose lease rent for the period from 14.08.2013 till 19.08.2015; III. Issue a writ/ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to sanction the revised sanction map with additional purchasable FAR (0.5) as sanctioned vide letter dated 23.09.2013 as contained in Annexure No.123 to the writ petition; IV. to issue such other orders, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in favour of the petitioner; and V. allow the petition with costs."

4. At the outset the learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner states that the petitioner does not want to press reliefs no.1 and 2 and he is pressing relief no.3 only. In support of the solitary claim of the petitioner the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 23.09.2013 the opposite party no.3/New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the authority') had passed an order giving in principle approval for purchase of purchasable FAR in respect of plot of land no.GH 01, 02 and 03, Sector 93-B, Noida. The petitioner was required to deposit Rs.48,96,70,373/- within 30 days and thereafter further proceedings would be initiated but on the very following day i.e.

24.09.2013 the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi passed an interim order in Consumer Case No.269 of 2013 directing the petitioner to maintain status- quo. The authority was also a party to the aforesaid proceedings. On 26.03.2015 the authority communicated to the petitioner that in view of the interim order dated 24.09.2013, passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission the petitioner's request for issuance of a revised sanction plan cannot be acceded to. The aforesaid interim order was modified by means of an order dated 3 WRIC No. 9523 of 2025

31.03.2015 passed by the Commission. However, yet another interim order was passed on 06.05.2015 by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.24860 of 2015 restraining any construction regarding two additional towers no.26 and 27 as per the revised plan. This interim order remained operative till dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition by means of an order dated 19.09.2016. The SLP (Civil) No.2446 of 2017 passed against the aforesaid order was disposed of by means of an order dated 23.02.2017 giving the petitioner a liberty to seek review of the order by this court. The review petition was dismissed by means of a judgement and order dated 24.04.2024. SLP (Civil) No.32570 of 2024 filed against the order of dismissal of the review petition was dismissed by means of an order dated 20.09.2024. Review Petition (Civil) No.2663 of 2024 filed seeking review of the order dated 20.09.2024 was dismissed by means of an order dated 07.01.2025.

5. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the authority had already granted permission for purchase of purchasable FAR by the petitioner way back in the year 2013. However, the same could not materialise because of interim orders passed by the courts. Now that there is no interim order in existence and is no impediment in purchasing purchasable FAR the petitioner requesting for issuance of a revised sanctioned plan with additional purchasable FAR (0.5) as was sanctioned vide letter dated 23.09.2013.

6. Opposing the aforesaid request, Sri Waseeq Uddin Ahmad, the learned counsel for the authority has submitted that the petitioner had not deposited the requisite amount in furtherance of the letter dated 23.09.2013. However, he has placed written instructions provided to him by the authority, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner has now deposited the processing fee on 22.01.2025 for purchasing 43,019.68 square meters (0.362 purchasable FAR) and action is being taken thereon as per the relevant Rules.

7. The learned counsel for the authority has stated that in case the petitioner deposits the current payable amount as per the scheme 4 WRIC No. 9523 of 2025 for purchase of purchasable FAIR the authority will take action on the request in accordance with the relevant Rules and Unified Policy, 2025 which provides that the additional FAR can be purchased on payment of requisite amount at the current rates.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection against the demand of requisite dues as per the relevant Rules and policy and states that the petitioner will deposit the same and the authority should ensure action thereon as per the time period provided in the policy.

9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction that the authority shall raise a demand in furtherance of the petitioner the application for purchase of additional purchasable FAR within a period of two weeks from today. The petitioner shall deposit the requisite amount as per the timeline prescribed in the Unified Policy, 2025 and in case the petitioner deposits the amount requisite action shall be taken on the petitioner's application for purchase of additional purchasable FAR in accordance with the relevant Rules and Policy. October 9, 2025 Ram. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhishek Khare, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Surendra Kumar Singh, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Waseeq Uddin Ahmad, the learned counsel the opposite party no.3/New Okhla Industrial Development Authority.

2. The learned counsel for the opposite parties have stated that they have written instructions in the matter and they will advance submissions in the present case without filing any counter affidavit.

3. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India the petitioner has made following prayers: "I. Issue the writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the Respondent No.1 in Statutory Revision Petition bearing no.3043/77-4- 2024/Appeal 94/23 in Re:- M/s Omaxe Buildhome Ltd. v. NOIDA to the extent it does not exempt the imposition of lease rent for the period of operation of status quo order of the Hon'ble NGT i.e.

14.08.2013 till 19.08.2015 which has been declared as zero-period 2 WRIC No. 9523 of 2025 by Respondent No.1 as contained in Annexure No.1 to this Writ Petition; II. Issue a writ/ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to not to impose lease rent for the period from 14.08.2013 till 19.08.2015; III. Issue a writ/ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to sanction the revised sanction map with additional purchasable FAR (0.5) as sanctioned vide letter dated 23.09.2013 as contained in Annexure No.123 to the writ petition; IV. to issue such other orders, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in favour of the petitioner; and V. allow the petition with costs."

4. At the outset the learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner states that the petitioner does not want to press reliefs no.1 and 2 and he is pressing relief no.3 only. In support of the solitary claim of the petitioner the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 23.09.2013 the opposite party no.3/New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the authority') had passed an order giving in principle approval for purchase of purchasable FAR in respect of plot of land no.GH 01, 02 and 03, Sector 93-B, Noida. The petitioner was required to deposit Rs.48,96,70,373/- within 30 days and thereafter further proceedings would be initiated but on the very following day i.e.

24.09.2013 the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi passed an interim order in Consumer Case No.269 of 2013 directing the petitioner to maintain status- quo. The authority was also a party to the aforesaid proceedings. On 26.03.2015 the authority communicated to the petitioner that in view of the interim order dated 24.09.2013, passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission the petitioner's request for issuance of a revised sanction plan cannot be acceded to. The aforesaid interim order was modified by means of an order dated 3 WRIC No. 9523 of 2025

31.03.2015 passed by the Commission. However, yet another interim order was passed on 06.05.2015 by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.24860 of 2015 restraining any construction regarding two additional towers no.26 and 27 as per the revised plan. This interim order remained operative till dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition by means of an order dated 19.09.2016. The SLP (Civil) No.2446 of 2017 passed against the aforesaid order was disposed of by means of an order dated 23.02.2017 giving the petitioner a liberty to seek review of the order by this court. The review petition was dismissed by means of a judgement and order dated 24.04.2024. SLP (Civil) No.32570 of 2024 filed against the order of dismissal of the review petition was dismissed by means of an order dated 20.09.2024. Review Petition (Civil) No.2663 of 2024 filed seeking review of the order dated 20.09.2024 was dismissed by means of an order dated 07.01.2025.

5. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the authority had already granted permission for purchase of purchasable FAR by the petitioner way back in the year 2013. However, the same could not materialise because of interim orders passed by the courts. Now that there is no interim order in existence and is no impediment in purchasing purchasable FAR the petitioner requesting for issuance of a revised sanctioned plan with additional purchasable FAR (0.5) as was sanctioned vide letter dated 23.09.2013.

6. Opposing the aforesaid request, Sri Waseeq Uddin Ahmad, the learned counsel for the authority has submitted that the petitioner had not deposited the requisite amount in furtherance of the letter dated 23.09.2013. However, he has placed written instructions provided to him by the authority, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner has now deposited the processing fee on 22.01.2025 for purchasing 43,019.68 square meters (0.362 purchasable FAR) and action is being taken thereon as per the relevant Rules.

7. The learned counsel for the authority has stated that in case the petitioner deposits the current payable amount as per the scheme 4 WRIC No. 9523 of 2025 for purchase of purchasable FAIR the authority will take action on the request in accordance with the relevant Rules and Unified Policy, 2025 which provides that the additional FAR can be purchased on payment of requisite amount at the current rates.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection against the demand of requisite dues as per the relevant Rules and policy and states that the petitioner will deposit the same and the authority should ensure action thereon as per the time period provided in the policy.

9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction that the authority shall raise a demand in furtherance of the petitioner the application for purchase of additional purchasable FAR within a period of two weeks from today. The petitioner shall deposit the requisite amount as per the timeline prescribed in the Unified Policy, 2025 and in case the petitioner deposits the amount requisite action shall be taken on the petitioner's application for purchase of additional purchasable FAR in accordance with the relevant Rules and Policy. October 9, 2025 Ram. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench