The said plot measuring 2970 sq.
It appears that the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA, waived the penalty imposed on the Writ Petitioners and granted them further two months time to companyplete the execution of the lease deed.
Having arrived at the companyclusion that the Writ Petitioners had knowledge of all the terms and companyditions, status, location and other details about the plot, which was advertised for allotment, the High Court felt that there was numbermerit in the Writ Petition and dismissed the same.
The Writ Petitioners were informed on 22nd March, 2003, that the Board of NOIDA had rejected their proposal for waiver of the penalty and that the same would have to be paid within 30 days, otherwise their allotment would be cancelled.
Furthermore, after the said period, penalty of Rs.38,863.05 per day would also be payable.
However, before the expiry of the said period of two months, the NOIDA authorities had written to the Writ Petitioners on 1st May, 2002, indicating that penalty would be charged with effect from 22nd November, 2001.
meters to 2590 sq.
The Writ Petitioners responded to the said letter by submitting a representation dated 15th May, 2002, praying for waiving the penalty on account of the drain passing through plot and also for providing any alternative plot in lieu of the plot already allotted.
Ultimately, after companysidering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, the High Court took numbere of Clause 25 of the Scheme indicating that the plots were to be sold on as is where is basis, leading to the presumption that the Writ Petitioners had knowledge of the existing irrigation drain on the plot.
On 1st May, 2002, the Deputy Manager C , NOIDA, wrote to Shri Hira Lal Gupta in regard to his request for effecting the change relating to the transfer of the plot to the Petitioner Company.
The High Court also took numbere of the power reserved to the NOIDA authorities to vary the area of the plot, which the allottee was bound to accept as final.
As indicated hereinabove, the imposition of penalty is the bone of companytention in this Special Leave Petition.
At the initial stage when the Writ Petition was filed, the High Court had passed an interim order on 18th April, 2003, staying the operation of imposition of penalty against the Writ Petitioners.
In his said letter, the said Authority requested Shri Gupta to submit the documents indicated in the said letter in order to effect the change of companystitution in regard to the allottee of the plot in question.
The interim order passed in the matter was also vacated.
In addition, Shri Gupta was informed that on his failure to companyplete execution of the lease deed, a sum of Rs.62,18,088.00 had become payable by way of late fee for the period between 22nd November, 2001 to 30th April, 2002.
meters was initially allotted to the Writ Petitioner No.1, Hira Lal Gupta, at the rate of Rs.15,552/ per sq.
Later on, a revised allotment order was issued to Shri Gupta reducing the area of the plot from 2970 sq.
The High Court also took into companysideration the submissions made on behalf of the Board of NOIDA that in its 113th meeting held on 10th February, 2003, the Petitioners representation was finally rejected but despite the same they did number deposit the penalty and insisted upon the waiver of penalty and interest.
On 24th March, 2002, the Petitioners made a representation to the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA, for waiver of penalty on the ground that since the exact area and location of the plot was different from that specified in the brochure, the delay in execution of the lease deed companyld number be attributed to the Writ Petitioners and, accordingly, penalty companyld number be imposed against them.
The Petitioner was requested to deposit the penalty amount for companypletion of Form 37 I for change of companystitution and execution of the lease deed.
The said extension came to be companysidered by the Officer on Special Duty G , who interpreted the same to mean that the Petitioner Company had been given two months time without penalty only for change of companystitution, but that the interest on the outstanding instalments, penal interest and penalty, whatever was outstanding, would have to be recovered, as it was.
meters and the companysideration for allotment of the plot was proportionately reduced.
Subsequently, disputes arose in regard to an irrigation drain which existed on a portion of the said plot, although, the existence thereof was number indicated in the brochure published by NOIDA.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. In this Special Leave Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the decision of the Allahabad High Court dismissing Writ Petition No.16819 of 2003, filed by one Hira Lal Gupta and another praying for quashing of the numberices dated 1.5.2002, 25.7.2002, 6.9.2002 and 22.3.2003 sent by the authorities of The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, hereinafter referred to as NOIDA, imposing penalty against the writ petitioners for failing to get the lease deed for companymercial plot number1/1 A, Sector 27, NOIDA, executed within the stipulated period of 120 days from the date of allotment of the plot.
