Allahabad HC Dismisses Yeida Review Plea in 100-Acre Yamuna City Township Dispute- Key Highlights
- Review Plea Rejected: Allahabad High Court dismissed Yeida’s review petition on January 22, 2026, refusing to reopen its November 16, 2023 judgment granting relief to Silverline Furnishing & Furnitures Pvt Ltd.
- Court’s Observation: The bench held that Yeida failed to show any “error apparent on the face of the record” and said the review plea was an attempt to re-argue the case, which is not permissible.
- Dispute Background: The case relates to a 100-acre township plot in Sector 18, Yamuna City, allotted under a 2011 scheme with a total premium of about ₹192 crore for ~404,000 sq m.
- Possession & Payment Issues: Despite substantial payments, Yeida executed lease deeds for reduced land and never handed over physical possession; documents lacked clear boundaries and location details.
- Impact of Order: With the review dismissed, Yeida must comply with earlier directions to hand over possession, execute an additional lease deed, and revise its demand notices.
The Allahabad High Court has rejected a review petition of the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (Yeida) which means that the court will not be reopening the judgment in favour of a private firm, that had resulted in the grant of relief, in the matter of land allotment and possession for a residential township at the Yamuna City area of Greater Noida.
The court's earlier orders asking Yeida to grant possession, carry out the execution of an additional lease deed, and revise its demands, will remain unchanged following the dismissal of the review petitions on January 22, 2026.
As per copy of the order which was made available to the public, division bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava ruled that Yeida had not produced any valid legal ground or error apparent on the face of the record for the high courts judgment dated November 16, 2023. The court remarked that the review petitions were basically a proposal to present the case on merits again which is not allowed by law.
The matter in dispute is a 100, acre township plot in Sector 18, which was part of a Yeida scheme launched in 2011. Bids were called with the possibility of consortium participation, and a consortium led by Silverline Furnishing and Furnitures Private Limited became the winning bidder.
Back then, Yeida sent a reservation letter in March 2011, according to which a total premium of about 192 crore was required against roughly 404, 000 square metres of land, officials said.
- 10% of the premium was deposited by the firm in April 2011
- An allotment letter was issued in December 2011, but only for 287,000 sqm
- Yeida assured the remaining land would be allotted once it came under its possession
Acting on this assurance, the firm deposited another 20% of the premium, along with about ₹8 crore in stamp duty and ₹1.44 crore as advance lease rent in February 2012, officials said.
Despite substantial payments, Yeida executed a lease deed for only 184,000 square metres, citing third-party litigation and possession-related constraints. The authority promised to allot the balance 220,000 square metres later and adjust excess payments accordingly.
Silverline, however, maintained that actual physical possession of even the leased land was never handed over. It described the possession certificate issued in March 2012 as a mere paper formality.
In its 2023 judgment, the High Court examined the possession certificate and lease plan and found serious inconsistencies.
- The documents lacked clear boundaries
- The exact location of the leased land was not specified
- A joint site visit conducted in August 2015 failed due to farmer agitation
Despite the non-delivery of possession, Yeida continued to raise demand notices, including one for ₹101 crore in 2016 and another for nearly ₹199 crore in November 2020, officials said. The authority cancelled the allotment and lease deed in July 2022, even as the matter remained pending before the court.
Upholding its earlier findings, the High Court reiterated that the scope of review jurisdiction is limited and “cannot be used as an appeal in disguise.” With the dismissal of the review petitions, the court’s earlier directions remain binding on Yeida.
Reacting to the order, Shailendra Bhatia, Additional Chief Executive Officer, Yeida, said, “The Authority will look into the order, and do the needful as per law.”
Image source- allahabadhighcourt.in
