Court Holds Authority Cannot Introduce New Mandatory Documentary Requirements After Scheme Commencement; Petitioner Entitled to Consideration Under Original 2006 Scheme at Original Rate
In a significant judgment dated September 29, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) delivered by Justice Irshad Ali has quashed the orders passed by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) and the Principal Secretary, Department of Industrial Development, Uttar Pradesh, which had rejected the residential plot allotment application of M/s Nalini Khandelwal under the Residential Plots Scheme, 2006 (1).
The petitioner, a whole-time Director of M/s Charu Apparels Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd., applied for allotment of a residential plot in Sector-100, NOIDA, in the reserved industrial category within the prescribed time frame of the scheme. Despite submitting various documents evidencing her status-including a functional certificate, board resolution, list of directors, and a bank-attested photograph-her application was rejected on grounds that were inconsistent and introduced after the application process had commenced.
Initially, the NOIDA Authority rejected her claim citing "No Status of Applicant in Unit and photo not attached." Upon her objection and submission of documents, the respondents shifted their grounds, contesting her directorship based on a cut-off date of March 31, 2006, which was not prescribed in the scheme brochure. This ground was struck down by the Court in 2011, which directed the respondents to reconsider the application.
Subsequently, the NOIDA Authority introduced a new ground rejecting her application due to non-submission of Form-32 (a statutory document filed with the Registrar of Companies), which was never stipulated as a mandatory document in the original scheme brochure. The petitioner contested this rejection, asserting that such a requirement was an impermissible retrospective imposition of a new eligibility criterion.
The Court analyzed the matter meticulously, relying on settled principles of administrative law and precedents including K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, and Delhi Development Authority v. Joint Action Committee, which emphasize that "rules of the game" governing public processes, including allotment schemes, cannot be changed after the process has started.
The Court observed that while scrutiny and verification of eligibility are legitimate functions of the authority, they cannot be expanded to include new, undisclosed mandatory documentary requirements after applications have been submitted. The imposition of Form-32 as a mandatory document post hoc violated principles of fairness, transparency, and Article 14 of the Constitution guaranteeing equality before law.
Further, the Court noted the shifting grounds and inconsistent approach by the respondents amounted to arbitrary action, denying the petitioner fair consideration under the original scheme. The judgment underscored that the petitioner, having pursued her claim diligently since 2006 and complied with all known requirements, should not be prejudiced by delays caused by the authorities' successive unsustainable orders.
Consequently, the Court quashed both the revisional order dated March 17, 2017, and the rejection order dated September 10, 2012. It directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's application strictly in accordance with the original Residential Plots Scheme, 2006 (1), without insisting on Form-32 or any other unprescribed conditions.
If the original plot applied for is available, it must be allotted at the original premium rate after adjusting the amount already deposited by the petitioner. If unavailable, the petitioner must be offered an alternative plot of the same type, category, size, and nature, preferably in Sector-100 or a comparable location, at the original rate. The Court emphasized that the petitioner should not bear the financial burden of delays caused by the authorities.
This ruling reiterates the constitutional mandate that statutory authorities must act fairly and consistently in public schemes and cannot alter eligibility criteria mid-process to the detriment of applicants. The judgment affirms the protection of legitimate expectations of applicants under public allotment schemes and the inviolability of procedural fairness.
Bottom Line:
NOIDA residential plot allotment - Authority cannot reject application by insisting on Form-32 as mandatory document when brochure did not prescribe it - Rules of the game cannot be changed after process has commenced - Rejection orders and revisional order quashed - Petitioner entitled to consideration/allotment under original 2006 scheme at original rate.
Statutory provision(s):
U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 Section 41(3), U.P. Industrial Development Act, 1976 Section 12, Residential Plots Scheme, 2006 (1)
M/s Nalini Khandelwal v. State of U.P., (All)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2994804
