Allahabad High Court Stays Noida Authority’s Denial of Permission for Construction
In a recent development, the Allahabad High Court has intervened in a case where the Noida Authority denied permission to Satya Homes Pvt Ltd and other developers to carry out construction on land they had purchased in Sector 161. The court has issued a stay on the Authority’s order, emphasizing the need for solid and legally sound reasons to reject building permits.
A Contested Application for Construction
The petitioners, who had bought a 9,571 sqm land in 2015, sought permission from the Authority two years later to construct a guesthouse and club house in Gulawali village. Unfortunately, their application was rejected by the Authority on the grounds that the purchased land was part of a notified area and would eventually be acquired for institutional development of Sector 161.
Subsequently, Satya Homes challenged the Authority’s decision in the high court. The court directed the Authority to set aside the denial and initiate fresh proceedings. However, amidst this process, the Authority rejected another application by Satya Homes. This prompted the company to file a writ petition in April 2019. The court consolidated Satya Homes’ petition with another filed by Kiran Devi and others who faced similar rejections.
Claims of Legitimate Acquisition and Land Usage
Kiran Devi’s case centered around land that had previously been used for residential purposes and was declared non-agricultural under the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. In March 2015, she legally purchased the land to build a house. Additionally, around 64 families in the same area also purchased land but failed to secure permission from the Noida Authority to proceed with construction.
The petitioners argued that the Authority’s justification of the land being notified for institutional development lacked substance, as no steps had been taken to acquire the plots. They requested the court to allow constructions on the legally purchased land.
However, in defense of the denial, the Authority’s counsel stated that the land in question was not part of abadi (an inhabited area) and raised concerns regarding the petitioners violating Building Regulations. The Authority also reported that a proposal to acquire the land had been submitted to the additional district magistrate for land acquisition back in October 2012.
Moreover, the counsel highlighted that the Authority had already taken possession of a certain portion of the land and was in the process of acquiring the remaining part. In addition to this, the Authority accused the petitioners of fragmenting the land and selling small plots that went against the initial planning objectives for institutional development.
High Court’s Verdict and Upcoming Proceedings
On October 4th, the court made a significant observation that acknowledged the regulatory powers of the Authority but underscored that such powers should not be used to impose blanket restrictions without valid reasons. Consequently, the bench of Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Vikas Budhwar set aside the Authority’s denial of permission and instructed it to reconsider the petitioners’ application by following proper procedures and legal guidelines.
The court has asked the Authority to conduct a fresh site inspection of the land in November and present a copy of the report to the petitioners by November 14th. In turn, the petitioners and other affected entities will have 10 days to submit their objections. The order issued by the court reads, “The matter stands remitted back to the chief executive officer, Noida Authority, to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.”
As of now, the court has set the next hearing for the second week of December, where the Coffers representatives of both Satya Homes Pvt Ltd and Kiran Devi, along with others affected by the denial of permission, will present their arguments before the bench.
The case bears significance in highlighting the importance of justifiable reasons for denying construction permits and the need to maintain a transparent and fair process within such regulatory authorities to ensure the welfare of not just the individuals involved but also the larger community.
