Advertisement
When should a housing society in Mumbai start considering re...
From GST on JDAs to SEBI’s REIT reclassification and the S...
Stay ahead in the world of real estate with our daily podcas...
Stay ahead in the world of real estate with our daily podcas...
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed review petitions filed by the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) in a long-running land dispute with Silverline Furnishing and Furnitures Pvt Ltd, reaffirming its earlier ruling that directs YEIDA to hand over physical possession and execute lease formalities for a township plot in Greater Noida. The dispute centres on a roughly 100-acre parcel in Sector 18 originally allotted under a 2011 scheme, where YEIDA had failed to deliver physical possession despite collecting premium payments and related fees. The division bench found no apparent on the face of the record in its November 2023 judgment and noted that YEIDA's review pleas sought to re-argue merits beyond the limited scope of review jurisdiction. The court's directives to revise demand notices and adjust lease documentation remain in force.
The Allahabad High Court has rejected review petitions from the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) in a protracted land dispute with Silverline Furnishing and Furnitures Pvt Ltd, reaffirming its 2023 judgment that favoured the developer and issued specific directions regarding land possession and lease formalities. The authority's appeal to revisit that order was dismissed on the grounds that it did not establish any legal error justifying a review, effectively upholding the earlier ruling. Advertisement
The dispute relates to a plot of around 100 acres in Sector 18 of Greater Noida, earmarked for a residential township under a YEIDA scheme launched in 2011. YEIDA had invited bids for the parcel, and a consortium led by Silverline emerged successful. The authority issued a reservation letter requiring a premium of approximately INR 192 crore for about 404,000 sq m of land. Silverline paid an initial portion of the premium and associated taxes, relying on assurances that the entire allotted area would be transferred once YEIDA acquired it.
However, YEIDA later executed a lease deed for only about 1.8 lakh sq m, citing third-party litigation and possession constraints, and did not hand over physical possession for the remaining land. Silverline maintained that even for the portion under lease, actual possession was never delivered, arguing that the possession certificate and lease plan lacked clear demarcation and did not correspond to physical control of the site. In its 2023 judgment, the High Court noted these inconsistencies and ruled that actual possession had not been provided. It consequently quashed demand notices and the cancellation of the allotment, and directed YEIDA to deliver physical possession, execute an additional lease deed and revise demands without charging lease rent and interest for the period when possession was not provided.
In the most recent proceedings, YEIDA argued that new material and subsequent legal developments warranted reconsideration. The High Court, however, held that review jurisdiction is strictly limited and not a mechanism to re-argue the case on merits. The court found that the authority had not demonstrated an apparent on the face of the record in the original judgment and reiterated that the review petitions were essentially an attempt to relitigate factual and legal issues already decided. As a result, the earlier directions remain binding on YEIDA.
The authority has indicated that it will examine the order and take appropriate action in accordance with law. Silverline Furnishing was not available for comment at the time of reporting.
5th Jun, 2025
25th May, 2023
11th May, 2023
27th Apr, 2023
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
