JUDGMENT : By the Court.-Shri Amit Saxena, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Siddharth Singhal and Shri Ravi Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sarthak under the authority of Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. The writ petitioner is a private limited company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, with its registered office at 3016/5, Second Floor, Street No. 12A, Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi. The petitioner is engaged in the development of residential as well as commercial projects. 3. The writ petition was initially filed seeking the following reliefs : ''(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to handover the vacant, physical and peaceful possession of the Encroached Portion of the Subject Plot admeasuring 17261 sqm forming part of Plot No. SC02/C, Sports City, Sector 150, Noida Gautam Budh Nagar allotted to the petitioner. (ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to give ''zero period'' from the date of execution of the Lease-deed i.e. 19-12-2014 till the time the petitioner is given the vacant, physical and peaceful possession of the said Encroached Portion of the Subject Plot being Plot No. SC-02/C, Sports City, Sector 150, Noida Gautam Budh Nagar allotted to the petitioner. (iii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to defer the payment of annual lease rent for the period commencing from the date of execution of Lease-deed dated 19-12-2014 till the date on which the vacant, physical and peaceful possession of the Encroached Portion of the Subject Plot is handed over to the petitioner: (iv) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to grant extension of time with regard to the time period stipulated in the lease-deed for completion of the project commencing from the date of execution of lease-deed i.e. 19-12-2014 till the date on which the vacant, physical and peaceful plot of Encroached Portion of the Subject Plot is handed over to the petitioner; and (v) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to not issue any demand note or any further or subsequent default notices till the time the petitioner is given the vacant, physical and peaceful possession of the Encroached Portion of the Subject Plot being Plot No. SC02/C, Sports City, Sector 150, Noida Gautam Budh Nagar allotted to the petitioner; and (vi) any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice. (vii) Award cost of the petition to the petitioner.'' 4. The writ petition was amended and the following reliefs were incorporated : ''(viii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11-02-2021 issued by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority i.e. respondent No. 2 (Annexure 18 to this writ petition) in relation to Plot being SC-02/C, Sports City, Sector 150, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. (ix) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to not take any coercive steps/actions pursuant to the Impugned Order dated 11-02-2021. (x) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to expeditiously grant approval of the building plans submitted vide application dated 12-03-2020 (Annexure 19 to this writ petition) in respect of group housing project of the petitioner in the Subject Plot.'' 5. (x) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to expeditiously grant approval of the building plans submitted vide application dated 12-03-2020 (Annexure 19 to this writ petition) in respect of group housing project of the petitioner in the Subject Plot.'' 5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 floated a scheme, being Scheme 2014-15 (Sports City) for development of Sports City in Plot No. SC-02 in Sector 150, NOIDA and invited bids from interested parties for being awarded the project under the scheme. The petitioner submitted its bid as a consortium member and the bid was accepted by the respondent No. 2 vide letter of acceptance dated 7.7.2014 issued in favour of the consortium addressed to Lotus Greens Constructions Pvt. Ltd., as lead member. The consortium was allotted Plot No. SC-02, Sector 150, NOIDA ad-measuring 12,00,000 square meters @ Rs. 19,400/- per square meter. A sum of Rs. 96,40,00,000/- was deposited by the consortium including the petitioner after adjusting earnest money of Rs. 20 crores. As per the understanding by the petitioner and other consortium members, the petitioner would be entitled to an area of 60,000 square meters out of the said Sports City, Plot No. SC-02/C. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 23,28,00,000/- being 20% of the total consideration in respect of the plot in question. The respondent No. 2 on 19.12.2014 executed a lease-deed in respect of the 60,000 square meters for a period of 90 years. However, the possession of the plot i.e. SC 02-C (area 60,000 square meters) could not be handed over on account of disputes with farmers and land owners regarding the acquisition of the land. The petitioner on account of not being handed over possession of the leased plot could not commence the project. The petitioner under the aforesaid circumstances applied for grant of zero period benefit and for different of payment of installments lease premium and annual lease rent which was accorded by the respondent No. 2 from the date of allotment i.e. 7.7.2014 upto 30.9.2016 vide letter dated 12.9.2016. 6. The petitioner under the aforesaid circumstances applied for grant of zero period benefit and for different of payment of installments lease premium and annual lease rent which was accorded by the respondent No. 2 from the date of allotment i.e. 7.7.2014 upto 30.9.2016 vide letter dated 12.9.2016. 6. The lead member of the consortium M/s. Lotus Greens Constructions Pvt. Ltd. for itself and also on behalf of its members including the petitioner also applied to the respondent No. 2 for grant of zero period benefit till the vacant, peaceful and physical possession of the land allotted was handed over to the Consortium Members. When there was no response from the respondent No. 2 M/s. Lotus Greens Constructions Pvt. Ltd., filed Writ Petition No. 18798 of 2017 which was disposed of directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the application regarding handing over of possession and grant of zero period benefit within one month vide order dated 29.5.2019. The respondent No. 2 did not comply with the order dated 29.5.2019. 7. The petitioner under the zero period policy of the respondent No. 2 made an application for re-schedulement of the outstanding dues of lease premium and deposited a sum of Rs. 10,26,20,453/- as re-schedulement fee as per the policy. The respondent No. 2 instead of allowing the re-schedulement raised a demand of Rs. 10.88 Crores. The petitioner contested the said demand on the ground that such demand could not be raised during the period, the petitioner was not handed over vacant physical possession of the plot allotted. When the Respondent No. 2 did not take any decision in the matter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7962 of 2020 which was disposed of vide order dated 5.3.2020 directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the application seeking grant of zero period benefit and regarding annual lease rent within six weeks by order dated 5.3.2020 in the light of the observation made in the order. The respondent No. 2 in compliance of the order dated 5.3.2020 has decided the representation of the petitioner and arbitrarily rejected the same by the impugned order dated 11.2.2021. 8. The respondent No. 2 in compliance of the order dated 5.3.2020 has decided the representation of the petitioner and arbitrarily rejected the same by the impugned order dated 11.2.2021. 8. In the aforesaid factual backdrops the petitioner submits that the inaction on the part of the respondent No. 2 in arranging vacant peaceful and physical possession of the encroached portion of 17261 square meter of the plot allotted to the petitioners even after more than 5 years of execution of the lease-deed is causing serious financial loss and the request for grant of zero period benefit was liable to be allowed. Instead the respondent No. 2 has proceeded to reject the same. Admittedly, the respondent No. 2 did not have possession over the encroached area of the plot and the encroachment was removed only on 21.8.2020 after six years of the allotment of the land, the petitioner was certainly entitled to the benefit of the zero period policy. Further, the petitioner cannot be forced to pay the lease premium and annual lease rent in respect of the plot substantial portion of which has not been handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be penalized for the fault/lapse of the respondent No. 2 who, admittedly, failed to clear the plot allotted to the petitioner of the encroachment existing over it at the time of allotment of the plot and consequently, the petitioner was deprived from utilizing the full potential of the allotted plot. It is, thus, prayed that the writ petition be allowed. 9. A counter-affidavit sworn by Shri Anil Kumar Singh son of late Shri Ram Shanker Singh posted as AGM in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA), Gautam Budh Nagar has been filed in response to the writ petition on behalf of respondent No. 2 stating therein that the petitioner was given possession of the plot SC-02/, Sector 150 having an area of 60,000 square meters on 26.12.2014 and there was no encroachment on the said plot. The entire land allotted to the petitioner was acquired land of the NOIDA authority and there was no disturbance with the farmers. The land of the farmers is on the other side of the road. The petitioner never applied for approval of map to raise constructions and the request for grant of zero period benefit is unjustified. The entire land allotted to the petitioner was acquired land of the NOIDA authority and there was no disturbance with the farmers. The land of the farmers is on the other side of the road. The petitioner never applied for approval of map to raise constructions and the request for grant of zero period benefit is unjustified. The lead member of the petitioners consortium M/s. Lotus Greens Construction Pvt. Ltd., has already been given the benefit of zero period vide letter dated 12.9.2016 and the petitioner was also extended the benefit of zero period from 10.9.2014 to 30.9.2016. The NOIDA authority does not have policy to declare zero period in respect of lease rent and as such, the relief in that regard prayed for cannot be granted to the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the impugned order. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, it may avail the remedy of approaching the State Government under Section 41 (3) of the U.P. Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973 read with Section 12 of U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. 10. In the rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner has reiterated its stand taken in the writ petition and highlighted the contrary stand of the respondent No. 2 in the counter-affidavit. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 12. We find that the respondent No. 2 while passing the impugned order has not considered the case of the petitioner in correct perspective. The respondent No. 2 was required to decide the representation in compliance of the order dated 5.3.2020 passed in Writ Petition No. 7962 of 2020 (Allure Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 2 others). The operative portion of the order dated 5.3.2020 reads as under: ''The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA-respondent No. 3 to pass a fresh order only with regard to lease rent, which has been charged from 2015 upto 2020, especially in view of the fact that the 'zero period' has been allowed upto 30.9.2016 and why the petitioner should be saddled with extra lease rent, once the property in question was not handed over to the petitioner and 'zero period' having been declared by the authority itself. The said decision shall be taken by the Chief Executive Officer-respondent No. 3 within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is presented before the authority concerned. Till such decision is taken by the Chief Executive Officer, so far as lease rent is concerned, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the demand notice dated 6.9.2019 only with regard to lease rent. The said demand shall be subject to final decision that may be taken by the Chief Executive Officer.'' 13. A perusal of the orders of the co-ordinate Bench dated 5.3.2020 shows that this Court required the Chief Executive Officer to take a decision regarding charging of lease rent for the period possession of the plot not having handed over to the allottee. We find that the respondent No. 2 while rejecting the representation of the petitioner has not gone into this question at all and simply has stated that there is no such policy of the authority. 14. We also find that the respondent No. 2 under the impugned order dated 11.2.2021 has noted that the encroachment ad-measuring 17621 square meter was removed only on 21.8.2020. It necessarily flows that the petitioner was not put in possession of the entire land allotted to it on 26.12.2014 consequent to the execution of the lease-deed on 19.12.2014. In such view of the matter, we are of the view that the respondent No. 2 was not justified to restrict the zero period benefit from 19.12.2014 up to 30.9.2016 only. In the circumstances that stood attracted to the case of the petitioner, it was liable to get zero period benefit from 19.12.2014 up to 21.8.2020 when the encroachment was admittedly cleared from the plot allotted. We also find that the respondent No. 2 is not justified to charge the lease rent @ 2.5% of the total premium from 19.12.2014 up to 21.8.2020. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 11.2.2021 passed by the respondent No. 2 in relation to Plot No. SC-02/C, Sports City, Sector 150, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., is set aside. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 11.2.2021 passed by the respondent No. 2 in relation to Plot No. SC-02/C, Sports City, Sector 150, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., is set aside. The respondent No. 2 is directed to grant benefit of zero period to the petitioner from 19.4.2014 up to 21.8.2020 and not charge the lease rent in respect of the area of the plot, the possession of which has not been handed over at the time of allotment. 16. So far as the relief regarding grant of approval to the building plans submitted vide application dated 12.3.2020 is concerned, we expect the Authority to do the needful in accordance with law considering the observations made hereinabove.