Why shouldn’t we cancel plots given irregularly,SC asks Noida

A string of influential persons,including former CEO and later UP Chief Secretary Neera Yadav,have been accused of tweaking parameters. According to the PIL,there were people who were initially allotted plots at different locations,but got larger plots in better places after conversion and payment of transfer charges.

The bench cited its 2001 judgement in Harsh Dhingra’s case,wherein the SC had upheld the principle of cancellation of subsequent allotments in larger public interest. Dhingra’s case pertained to allotments in Haryana and the High Court had ordered to treat all contentious allotments alike. Authorities were told to cancel allotments in one go.

“Tell us why this court should not follow the principle in Harsh Dhingra’s case? Why should we not cancel all subsequent allotments and ask you to issue letters in favour

of original allottees?” the bench said.

Senior advocate U U Lalit,appearing for Noida Authority,contended that reverting the allotments to original beneficiaries could inconvenience people who have constructed houses and other structures on plots allotted subsequently. “Such an order would also involve the rights of third parties,who are not before the court at the moment,” he said.

Responding to Lalit,the bench said the issue had already been looked into by a three-judge Supreme Court bench in Dhingra’s case. “You should first go through the judgement in Harsh Dhingra (case) and then reply to our query,” the court said.

It came down heavily on the Authority as it heard a response on the actions taken against Neera Yadav’s daughters,Suruchi and Sanskriti Yadav,who,according to the CBI,first got shops allotted in their favour since they would not be entitled to plots on their own after an allotment in their mothers’ name. These shops were allegedly exchanged for plots later.

“What have you done against them after serving notices? Absolutely nothing? Did they get allotments only because their mother was in power? We are not at all satisfied with your actions,” the court said.