Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 150 OF 1997   

NOIDA Entrepreneurs’ Association             ....Petitioner

versus

New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and others          ....Respondents  

O  R  D  E  R

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1.  The  legislature  of  Uttar  Pradesh  enacted  the  U.P.  Industrial  Area  

Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1976 Act”) for planned  

development of industrial and residential areas in the State. For achieving that  

object,  the State Government constituted New Okhla Industrial Development  

Authority (“NOIDA”).  Thereafter,  a  new township was established near the  

capital of the country. Unfortunately, allotment of land and plots in the new  

township  have  become  subject  matter  of  innumerable  controversies  and  

generated  huge litigation in the  Allahabad  and  Delhi  High Courts  and  this  

Court.  

2. NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association filed the above noted writ  petition  

1

Page 2

under Article 32 of the Constitution by way of public interest litigation (PIL) for  

enforcement of their rights guaranteed under Articles 14,  19  and 21 of the  

Constitution.  It  pleaded  that  the  very  object  of  creating NOIDA has  been  

defeated because of major land scandals and prayed that a thorough probe be  

ordered into the allotment of land and plots and the abuse of power by the  

functionaries of NOIDA.

3. On 7.4.1997, this Court gave liberty to the petitioner to file amended writ  

petition and to place before the Court facts  on the basis  of which the writ  

petition could be treated as a PIL. In furtherance of that order, the petitioner  

filed amended petition. Thereafter, the Court issued notice dated 21.4.1997 on  

following two issues:

“(1) Issue writ of mandamus and/or any appropriate writ and direct  CBI to investigate into all the land allotments and conversion of  lands made by NOIDA during the past 10 years.

(2) Issue an appropriate writ and directions and frame guidelines  for allotment of lands by NOIDA.”

4. By an order dated 29.8.1997, the Court requested Dr. Rajeev Dhawan,  

learned senior counsel,  who had been appearing for the petitioner to act  as  

amicus curiae. Dr. Dhawan graciously accepted the Court’s request and for last  

16 years he has rendered valuable assistance in deciding various issues.  

5. During  the  pendency  of  the  writ  petition,  the  State  Government  

constituted a Commission of Inquiry headed by Shri Justice Murtaza Hussain, a  

retired Judge of the Allahabad High Court. On 20.1.1998, this Court passed an  

2

Page 3

order for production of various documents including the report of the Inquiry  

Commission and lists  of the illegal and irregular allotments.  Thereupon, the  

learned Amicus filed a compilation of documents containing the report of the  

NOIDA  Inquiry  Commission,  a  list  of  persons  who  were  found  by  the  

Commission to be beneficiaries of irregular allotments and another list of plots  

and persons in respect of whom the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had  

written to the State Government.  

6. In  the  meanwhile,  the  State  Government  referred  the  complaints  of  

alleged irregularities by some of the official respondents and Shri S. C. Tripathi  

to the Chairman, Board of Revenue.  The report of the Chairman was filed  

before this Court on 31.8.1998.

7. After  considering  the  affidavits  and  documents  filed  by  the  learned  

Amicus,  the  CBI  and the  State  Government,  the  Court  appointed  one  man  

Commission of Shri Justice K.T. Thomas (former Judge of this Court). Justice  

Thomas  submitted  report  dated  19.10.2005  which  revealed  large  scale  

irregularities  in  the  allotment  of  land  and  plots.  On  1.5.2006,  the  learned  

Amicus filed submissions on the report of Justice K.T. Thomas Commission  

and responses of various parties.   Thereafter, detailed order was passed qua  

respondent No.7.

8. On 9.2.2009,  a  three Judge Bench passed  separate  orders  on various  

I.As. but deferred consideration of the cases of Ms. Neera Yadav and her two  

3

Page 4

daughters, viz., Ms. Sanskriti Yadav and Ms. Suruchi Yadav. Thereafter, the  

Court passed order dated 31.3.2009 and directed that all the IAs relating to  

allotment of plots by NOIDA shall be dealt with by NOIDA expeditiously and  

decided within a period of six weeks of the date of filing of representation by  

the applicants.

9. On 1.10.2010, the Court passed the following order:

“Heard learned Amicus Curiae as  well as  other counsel for the  parties.

All  the  applicants  are  permitted  to  approach  NOIDA within a  period of two weeks from this date. If such applications are filed,  without  reference  to  the  earlier  orders/directions  of  this  Court,  NOIDA  is  free  to  pass  appropriate  orders  considering  the  eligibility/entitlement  after  affording  opportunity  to  the  parties  concerned within a period of three months thereafter. With these  directions, interlocutory applications are disposed of accordingly.  

It is made clear that if any person is aggrieved in respect of the  order passed by the NOIDA, he/she will be free to approach the  High Court to vindicate his/her grievance.

List these matters for final disposal in the first week of February,  2011.”

10. On  2.2.2011,  9.2.2011  and  29.4.2011,  a  two  Judge  Bench  heard  

arguments on the question whether a direction be issued to the CBI to make  

preliminary investigation against Shri Ravi Mathur, who held the post of Chief  

Executive Officer, NOIDA. That question was finally decided vide order dated  

9.5.2011 – NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association v. NOIDA (2011) 6 SCC 508.

11. Thereafter,  the  case  was  taken up on 3.11.2012  for  consideration of  

4

Page 5

following two issues:

“1. Continuation of the interim orders passed by this Court, and

2. Request made by Senior Superintendent of Police, CBI-ACU- IV,  New  Delhi  for  supply  of  the  Report  submitted  by  Shri  A.P.Singh, the then Chairman, Board of Revenue, Lucknow, U.P.”

Learned counsel representing NOIDA sought time to place before the Court a  

comprehensive statement containing the status of various applications pending  

before NOIDA. He was allowed to do so.  

12. Thereafter,  an affidavit of Shri S.C.  Gupta,  Manager  in NOIDA was  

filed. The Court did not feel satisfied with that affidavit and directed NOIDA to  

file a statement showing the status of various pending applications.  

13. In compliance of the directions given by the Court, one more affidavit  

was filed by Shri Pradeep Dutt Sharma, Residential Department, NOIDA but  

the  Court  did  not  feel  satisfied  with  that  affidavit  and  directed  the  Chief  

Executive Officer,  NOIDA to  file his  own affidavit.  Thereafter,  Shri Rama  

Raman,  the  then  Chief  Executive  Officer,  NOIDA  filed  affidavits  dated  

29.1.2013,  18.4.2013,  8.5.2013  and  13.6.2013.  The  counsel  assisting  the  

learned amicus submitted report and response to affidavit dated 18.4.2013 and a  

note on affidavit dated 13.6.2013.

14. While Shri U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for NOIDA relied upon  

orders dated 20.5.2013 passed by NOIDA in the cases of Shri Shyam Narayan  

Mishra,  Ms.  Suruchi Yadav,  Ms.  Sanskriti Yadav,  Mrs.  Neera  Yadav,  Shri  

5

Page 6

Rajiv Kumar, Shri Shankar Sitapati, Shri Ram Kishore Pal, Shri Rajesh Singh,  

Shri Shrawan Kumar Pal, Shri Sanjiv Kumar Rawat and M/s. Flex Engineering  

Ltd., annexures filed with affidavits dated 29.1.2013, 18.4.2013, 8.5.2013 and  

13.6.2013 and submitted that the matter may now be closed because in all the  

cases, the competent authority has already passed orders in compliance of the  

directions given by the Court, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned Amicus termed the  

action taken in the cases of Shri Shyam Narayan Mishra, Ms. Suruchi Yadav,  

Ms.  Sanskriti  Yadav,  Mrs.  Neera  Yadav,  Shri  Rajiv  Kumar,  Shri  Shankar  

Sitapati, M/s. Pax Hightech Services Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Flex Industries Ltd, and  

M/s. Flex Engineering Ltd. (now M/s. UFlex Ltd.) as an eyewash and vitiated  

due to malafides.  Learned Amicus argued that once conversion of the plots of  

Ms. Suruchi Yadav, Ms. Sanskriti Yadav, Mrs. Neera Yadav, Shri Rajiv Kumar  

and Shri Shankar Sitapati  was  cancelled,  there could be no justification for  

allotment of plots  to  them equivalent to  the plots  initially allotted.  Learned  

Amicus emphasised that  NOIDA has  not  given any explanation as  to  what  

action was taken in the case of Shri Shyam Narayan Mishra, who was found  

guilty  of  committing  fraud  leading  to  cancellation  of  the  allotment  and  

wondered  how  fresh  allotment  could  be  made  to  various  persons  after  

cancellation of conversion.  Dr.  Dhawan further submitted that  the allotment  

made to the same group of industries, viz., M/s. Flex Industries Ltd, and M/s.  

Flex Engineering Ltd. is ex-facie illegal because law does not permit allotment  

of more than one plot to the same person.  He also invited the Court’s attention  

6

Page 7

to the report and response to affidavit dated 18.4.2013 of Shri Rama Raman and  

pointed out that a number of original plots remained un-allotted despite the fact  

that conversion had been cancelled.

15. We  have  considered  the  respective  submissions  and  find  merit  in  

Dr.Dhawan’s  criticism of  the  decision  taken  by  NOIDA in cases  of  large  

number of persons including Ms. Suruchi Yadav, Ms. Sanskriti Yadav, Mrs.  

Neera Yadav, Shri Rajiv Kumar, Shri Shankar Sitapati and M/s. Flex Industries.  

16. The arbitrary character of the action taken by NOIDA is demonstrated by  

the  fact  that  even  though Mr.  Rajiv  Kumar did  not  want  alternative  plot,  

NOIDA has offered him alternative plot. The 1976 Act and the rules framed  

thereunder do not postulate conversion of plot allotted in one category to the  

other. What is most surprising is that originally plot No. B-88/51 measuring 450  

sq. meters was allotted to Ms. Suruchi Yadav but the same was converted into  

plot No.A-32/44 apparently because the land in Sector-44 was more costly. In  

the case of Ms. Sanskriti Yadav, plot No.B-73/44 was allotted under Scheme  

1994(II) and within 2 months and 12 days the same was converted into plot  

No.A-33/44. In the case of Mrs. Neera Yadav, original allotment was made on  

8.4.1994  in  Sector-32  under  Scheme 1994(I)  and  on  the  next  day  it  was  

converted into plot No.26 of Sector-14A having an area of 450 sq. meters. In  

the case of Shri Rajiv Kumar, the original allotment was in Sector-51 of a plot  

measuring 450 sq. meters under Scheme 1994(III) but soon thereafter it was  

converted to plot No.27/14A. M/s.  Flex Industries Ltd. was allotted land in  

7

Page 8

Group Housing Sectors-11 and 51. The CBI found that the allotment was an  

end product of conspiracy. Another plot was allotted to Shri Amar Singh in the  

name of M/s. Flex Industries Ltd. The original allotment was of plot No.B-126,  

Sector-44 and it was converted into plot No.C-218, Sector-44.  

17. Therefore, we direct that notices be issued to all the persons named in  

paragraph 16 to show cause as to why allotments/alternative allotments made in  

their favour may not be quashed.  The notices are made returnable in 10 weeks.  

The same be  served upon all  the persons  through Chief Executive Officer,  

NODIA.

18. The persons to whom notices are served may file their reply affidavits  

within next six weeks and the case be listed before the Court after 16 weeks.

 …………………………J.    (G.S.SINGHVI)  

…………………………J.   (V. GOPALA GOWDA)

New Delhi; November 27, 2013.

8