Allahabad High Court Rejects YEIDA's Review Petitions in Land Dispute Case
The Allahabad High Court has firmly dismissed review petitions filed by the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA), refusing to reconsider its earlier directive that mandates the authority to hand over physical possession of land promised to Silverline Furnishing and Furnitures Pvt Ltd for a residential township project in Noida.
Court's Stance on Review Jurisdiction
A division bench comprising Justices Siddhartha Varma and Ashutosh Srivastava held that YEIDA failed to demonstrate any "error apparent on the face of the record" in the court's November 16, 2023 judgment. The bench emphasized that the review pleas essentially constituted an attempt to re-argue the matter on its merits, which is not permissible under the limited scope of review jurisdiction. The court reiterated that review powers are "extremely limited" and cannot serve as a disguised appeal.
Background of the Land Dispute
The dispute centers around plot number TS-2 in Sector 18, designated for a residential township. YEIDA had invited bids in 2011 for approximately 100 acres of land. A consortium led by Silverline emerged as the successful bidder, and in March 2011, YEIDA issued a reservation letter demanding a total premium of Rs 192 crore for 4 lakh square meters. Silverline promptly paid 10% of this amount in April 2011.
However, Silverline's case highlights that despite the bid covering the full area, YEIDA issued an allotment letter in December 2011 for only 2.9 lakh square meters, with assurances that the remaining land would be handed over once it came under YEIDA's possession. Relying on this assurance, Silverline paid another 20% of the premium, along with Rs 8 crore in stamp duty and Rs 1.4 crore as advance lease rent in February 2012.
Issues with Land Possession and Documentation
YEIDA later executed a lease deed for merely 1.8 lakh square meters, citing third-party litigation and possession constraints, while promising to allot the remaining land later and adjust excess payments. Silverline consistently maintained that even for the leased portion, actual physical possession was never delivered. The company argued that a "possession certificate" issued in March 2012 was merely a paper formality, lacking proper demarcation, access, or site control.
In its 2023 judgment, the High Court meticulously examined the possession certificate and lease plan, uncovering serious inconsistencies. The court noted that the certificate did not specify boundaries, and the lease plan failed to indicate where the leased land was situated on the ground. Unexplained shaded areas further complicated the matter. Additionally, the court referenced a joint site visit in August 2015 that failed due to farmers' agitation. Consequently, the bench concluded that actual physical possession was never handed over, rendering YEIDA's subsequent demands and actions unsustainable.
YEIDA's Demands and Cancellation Actions
Despite the absence of possession, YEIDA issued repeated demand notices, including one for Rs 101 crore in 2016 and another for nearly Rs 200 crore in November 2020, seeking lease rent, interest, and penal interest. Silverline challenged these demands in 2021. While the case was pending, YEIDA cancelled the allotment and lease deed in July 2022, citing non-payment of dues, delays in construction, and changes in shareholding. This prompted Silverline to file a second writ petition.
High Court's 2023 Judgment and Recent Review Dismissal
On November 16, 2023, the High Court quashed both the demand notice and cancellation order. It directed YEIDA to hand over actual physical possession within three months, execute an additional lease deed for the remaining land, and issue revised demands that exclude rent and interest for the period during which possession was not provided.
In the review proceedings, YEIDA argued that Silverline had accepted the land on an "as-is-where-is" basis, defaulted on payments, and violated consortium conditions. The authority also relied on later material, such as the Chaudhary Committee report and a Supreme Court judgment, to contend that development activity was demonstrated. However, the High Court rejected these submissions, noting that the alleged new material had not been pleaded earlier and that YEIDA failed to show it could not have been produced despite due diligence.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding contractual obligations and ensuring transparency in real estate transactions, particularly in development projects involving public authorities.
