NOIDA: The Allahabad High Court has dismissed review petitions filed by the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA), upholding its previous order mandating the authority to transfer physical possession of land allocated to Silverline Furnishing and Furnitures Pvt Ltd for a residential township project.
A division bench comprising Justices Siddhartha Varma and Ashutosh Srivastava stated that YEIDA failed to highlight any “error apparent on the face of the record” regarding the court’s judgment on November 16, 2023. The bench noted that the review petitions were essentially attempts to reargue the case, which is not allowed in review jurisdiction.
The conflict revolves around plot number TS-2 in Sector 18, designated for a residential township. YEIDA had invited bids in 2011 for approximately 100 acres, with a consortium led by Silverline winning the bid. In March 2011, YEIDA issued a reservation letter requiring a total premium of Rs 192 crore for 4 lakh sqm, of which Silverline paid 10% in April 2011.
Silverline contends that despite the bid covering the entire area, YEIDA issued an allotment letter in December 2011 for only 2.9 lakh sqm, with the promise that the remaining land would be delivered once in YEIDA’s possession. Acting on that assurance, Silverline paid an additional 20% of the premium, along with Rs 8 crore in stamp duty and Rs 1.4 crore as advance lease rent in February 2012.
However, YEIDA later executed a lease deed for only 1.8 lakh sqm, citing litigation and possession issues, while promising the remaining land would be allotted later and payments adjusted. Silverline maintained that actual physical possession for the leased portion was never granted, and the “possession certificate” provided in March 2012 was merely a formality without any demarcation, access, or site control.
The High Court, in its 2023 judgment, scrutinized the “possession certificate” and lease plan and found significant inconsistencies. It observed that boundaries were not specified on the certificate, and the lease plan did not clearly indicate the location of the leased land. Additionally, shaded areas remained unexplained.
The court also referred to a joint site visit in August 2015 that failed due to farmers’ protests. Consequently, the bench concluded that actual physical possession was never given, rendering YEIDA’s subsequent demands and actions invalid.
Despite the absence of possession, YEIDA issued several demand notices, including one for Rs 101 crore in 2016 and another for nearly Rs 200 crore in November 2020, seeking lease rent and penalties. Silverline contested these demands in 2021. While the case awaited resolution, YEIDA cancelled the allotment and lease deed in July 2022, citing non-payment and delays, prompting Silverline to file a second writ petition.
On November 16, 2023, the High Court annulled both the demand notice and cancellation, ordering YEIDA to provide actual physical possession within three months, execute an additional lease deed for the remaining land, and issue revised demands excluding rent and interest for the period possession was not given.
In the review proceedings, YEIDA contended that Silverline had accepted the land on an “as-is-where-is” basis, defaulted on payments, and failed to meet consortium conditions. They also referred to later materials, including the Chaudhary Committee report and a Supreme Court ruling indicating that development activity had occurred.
The High Court dismissed these arguments, reiterating that review powers are “extremely limited” and cannot serve as a hidden appeal. The court pointed out that the alleged new evidence was not previously presented and that YEIDA did not demonstrate it was unable to produce this information despite due diligence.
