NOIDA: After Ace group, one more real estate company has been granted a zero period waiver by the Allahabad high court because it did not get unencumbered land for its project, without which it could not go ahead with the construction.On November 16, Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava gave relief to Rudra Buildwell and another company, Silverline Furnishings and Furniture, whose land allotment had been cancelled over dues.The same bench had allowedAce Infracity an eight-year zero period waiver after the Noida Authority failed to make available the entire 60,000 sqm that the company needed to build housing projects.The court asked Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) to allow Rudra benefits of a zero period from the date land was allotted to the developer for two projects in the city till the time it was actually given the plots. It said GNIDA could not charge any interest or lease rent until the entire land was made available to Rudra.In August 2010, GNIDA allotted 81,800sqm in Sector 1 to a consortium of developers led by Shubhkamna Buildtech Pvt, of which Rudra was a member. In March 2011, the land was subdivided, leaving 33,538sqm in Rudras kitty.A lease deed was executed the following month, and Rudra paid 10% of the total premium amount of Rs 39 crore. According to the agreement, the remaining 90% was to be paid in 16 half-yearly instalments. The lease deed also provided for a 24-month moratorium from the date of allotment.Rudra claimed GNIDA failed to make available 13,500sqm of the total land, which is why it could not initiate construction work. GNIDA, however, argued it could not provide only 6,900 sqm that was encroached.In September 2019, Rudra filed a petition in the high court to claim zero period benefits for at least 6,900sqm. In January 2020, the court directed GNIDA to expedite its decision on the actual patch of land that it failed to provide Rudra. However, in July 2020, the industrial authority said the land encroached was only 1,598sqm.The developer argued in court that it had not been provided with the entire land till date. The GNIDA lawyer agreed that Rudra had been handed only a portion of the allotted land for technical reasons.The court then granted the petitioner interest and penalty waivers under zero period.The division bench allowed similar benefits in connection with another plot Rudra was allotted by GNIDA in Sector 16. In 2012, the builder was allotted 43,115sqm for a project. The land, however, could not be acquired because of protests by residents, who refused to shift two mazars built on the plot.Asked about the order, GNIDA chief Ravi Kumar NG said he was yet to receive a copy of it.In the case of Silverline Furnishings, the high court asked the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) to provide the company 100 acres it was promised in 2012 for developing a township in Sector 18.The division bench also set aside a demand notice of Rs 200 crore that YEIDA issued against Silverline in 2011 and another order cancelling the land allotment in 2022. YEIDA had taken the action as Silverline failed to clear the dues and start construction, besides changing the shareholdings.The order demanding interest and penal interest on the premium and lease rent during the period when physical possession of the leased land was not given to the petitioner is set aside. The order cancelling the lease deed and allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner is also set aside. The respondent YEIDA is directed to hand over the actual physical possession of the lease land to the petitioner within three months of service of the certified copy of the court order, the court order read.Although promised 100 acres, YEIDA had issued Silverline an allotment letter for 71 acres, saying the remaining land would be allotted soon. In March 2012, the industrial authority said it could offer only 45.5 acres because of litigation. A lease deed for 45.5 acres was executed. The developer, however, paid the lease rent and stamp duty for 71 acres.In March 2016, YEIDA issued a notice demanding Rs 101 crore despite the fact that physical possession of 45.5 acres had not been given to Silverline. The petitioner paid over Rs 16 crore in instalments.YEIDA issued another demand notice of Rs 199 crore in November 2020. The developer filed a case in 2021 against this order. But while the matter was sub-judice, the development authority cancelled the land allotment in July 2022 over non-payment of dues and delays in construction. Silverline filed another case in court.Since, we have concluded that the actual physical possession of the land leased out to the petitioner was not handed over, the demand raised by YEIDA towards the lease rent and interest cannot be justified, the bench observed.

Stay updated with all the Noida Latest News headlines here. For more exclusive & live news updates from all around India, stay connected with NYOOOZ.