Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 155517 (ALL)

GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THRU. AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,SUDEEP VIDYARTHI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT.OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT LKO. AND ANOTHER

WRIC/7374/2025 · 2025-08-01

Pankaj Bhatia

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44720 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7374 of 2025 Petitioner :- Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Thru. Authorized Signatory,Sudeep Vidyarthi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt.Of Infrastructure And Industrial Development Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sachin Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and Sri S.C. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abhishek Khare, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2. The Vakalatnama is taken on record. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 22.05.2024 passed by the Revisional Authority in exercise of powers conferred by virtue of Section 41(3) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 read with Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. 3. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the directions given in para 21 of the revisional order are arbitrary. It is argued that the restoration charges were, payable by the respondent no.2 and could not have been made by the revisional authority as has been done. Based upon the instructions, he states that the restoration charges as on today would workout to Rs.10,73,23,648/- which also includes the construction penalty. 4. The Counsel for the respondent no.2 based upon the instructions states that he is ready and willing to pay the said amount as claimed by the petitioner and recorded hereinabove. 5. In view of above, nothing survives. The impugned order dated 22.05.2024 is modified to the extent that instead of direction given in para 21 of the revisional order, the respondent no.2 shall pay 25% of the total amount i.e. 10,73,23,648 within a period of one month from today. The balance amount shall be paid within a period of six months in two equal installment as directed in para 22 of the revisional order. 6. On payment of 25% of the amount, the map shall be sanctioned by the petitioner authority and the other formalities, which are required for competition of the project including the restoration shall be done on payment of 25% of the amount.. 7. The parties shall bound by the other stipulations as contained in the agreement. As agreed by both the parties, the respondent no.2 shall complete the project within four years. 8. In view of above, the writ petition is disposed off. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 akverma Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench