JUDGMENT : 1. Sri Nikhil Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Anjali Upadhyay, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2, 3 and 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. The writ petitioner which is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of real estate and development of integrated township, construction and sale of flats etc. is aggrieved by the order dated 23.12.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for grant of the zero period benefit from the date of allotment dated 25.4.2011 till the date of passing of revised layout plan in respect of FH-03, Agricultural Green, Grater Noida is passed by the Respondent Authority has been rejected. Several other prayers have been made in the writ petition. 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Greater Noida floated a scheme on 11.1.2011 for allotment of large group housing/builders residential plots in which the minimum reserve price of Rs. 2600/- per sq. meter was fixed. The bid of the petitioner was accepted @ Rs. 2755/- per sq. meter and land ad-measuring 583566 sq. meter was allotted in favour of the petitioner vide allotment letter dated 20.4.2011. A lease deed was executed on 3.11.2012 for a consideration of Rs. 160,77,24,330/- payable in 12 installments as per the schedule mentioned in the lease deed. The petitioner was handed over possession of 5,79,191.10 sq. meters of the land out of 583566 sq. meters and balance land of 4377.90 sq. meters was to be handed over later. On getting the possession of the land the petitioner submitted a layout plan which was duly approved by the Competent Authority. The plot allotted to the petitioner was not free from encroachment and was hampering the development work in as much as the land was still occupied by the villagers, there was a public road in the middle of the plot which was still being used by villagers. The plot allotted to the petitioner was not free from encroachment and was hampering the development work in as much as the land was still occupied by the villagers, there was a public road in the middle of the plot which was still being used by villagers. The petitioner submitted a revised lease plan and also requested the authority for declaration of zero period form the date of allotment i.e. 20.4.2011 to the date of approval of the revised lease plan and adjust the amount paid by the petitioner till that date against the outstanding principal amount and issue a new payment plan for future installments to be paid by the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner requested for issuance of revised lease plan. The Development Authority executed two supplementary lease deeds on 4.12.2015 and 13.1.2017 whereafter the petitioner vide letter dated 23.1.2017 submitted building plans and other required documents for approval of revised sanction of the layout plan upon Plot No. FH-03 Sector Agricultural but no decision upon the revised layout plan submitted has been taken. On account of non-construction of approach road and non approval of revised layout plan submitted the petitioner could not carry out any development or construction actively upon the leased plot. 4. It is next contended that the Respondent Authority in its Board Meeting held on 24.12.2016 (107th Board Meeting) took a decision to grant zero period benefit to the allottees amongst other grounds on the ground that if the authority has delivered possession to the allottee and lease deed was executed but the allottee is unable to access the plot as a result of which development is impossible to commence, the allottee is entitled to the benefit of zero benefit upto the date on which the alternate access is provided. The Authority did not extend the benefit of zero period to the petitioner even though it stood covered by it. The Authority did not extend the benefit of zero period to the petitioner even though it stood covered by it. The petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court my means of Writ (C) No. 21861 of 2018 (M/s. Gaursons Hi-Tech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and Others) seeking the benefit of zero period for payment of money, interest and penal interest with respect of Plot No. FH-03, Sector Agricultural Greens Greater Noida, which was disposed of vide order dated 21.6.2018 directing the authority to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and the policy decision taken in the 104th Board Meeting dated 14.3.2016 by a reasoned and speaking order. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 21.6.2018 though the petitioner had to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court to ensure its compliance, the Respondent Authority on grounds untenable in law has now rejected the representation of the petitioner by order dated 23.12.2019 harbouring under an erroneous assumption that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of zero period as the petitioner had possession of the plot ignoring that there was continuous hindrance created by farmers upon the land and also the approach road was not constructed which led to undue hardship to the petitioner as it could not commence construction on the affected area. It is thus submitted that the denial of the benefit of zero period, as claimed by the petitioner is unjustified, particularly, in view of the fact that in similar circumstances the benefit of zero period was extended to M/s. Rajhans Infratech Pvt. Ltd. writ petitioner of Writ (C) No. 12462 of 2020 but the petitioner was denied the benefit. 5. Smt. Anjali Upadhyay, learned counsel representing the Respondent Authority has filed counter-affidavit on behalf the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. In the counter-affidavit, it has been averred that the petitioner was allotted Plot No. FH-03, Agriculture Green, Greater Noida, with area of 583566 sq. meter at the rate of Rs. 2755/- per sq. meter on 20.4.2011. As per the allotment letter, 10% of the premium of the plot i.e. Rs. 1607,72,433/- was to be deposited within 60 days apart from the reservation money of Rs. 8,57,72,433/- which had already been deposited. The remaining 80% of the premium of the plot was to be deposited with an interest of 13% per annum in 12 half yearly equal installments. 1607,72,433/- was to be deposited within 60 days apart from the reservation money of Rs. 8,57,72,433/- which had already been deposited. The remaining 80% of the premium of the plot was to be deposited with an interest of 13% per annum in 12 half yearly equal installments. On 2.11.2012 lease deed in respect of an area of 561727.95 sq. meter was executed and it was mentioned that area of 4374.90 sq. meters would be allotted later. On 27.9.2016, a revised lease plan of 566102.85 sq. meters was again issued which mentioned that the lease plan would be subject to orders passed in Writ Petition No. 12300 of 2010, Writ Petition No. 12303 of 2010, Writ Petition No. 32438 of 2012. Subsequently, a supplementary lease deed was executed. The benefit of zero period was to be considered as per the approved proposal in Item No. 103/2014 of the 103rd Board Meeting of the Authority. The counter-affidavit states that the policy approved in the 103rd Board Meeting was not effective and hence the matter could not be settled under this policy. The counter-affidavit further states that the zero period benefit was allowed for 21.10.2011 to 24.8.2012 as per earlier decision as the allottees plot being in a village other than village Patwari. The petitioner's project falls in village Bisrikh and no ground was found for obstructing the work by farmers on the land of Bisrikh falling under the petitioner's project and the petitioner has undisputed possession of 566102.85 sq. meters of the allotted land. The Project Department Report has found that the 24 meter road has been included in the layout approved by the Planning Department and the contention of the petitioner that the 24 meter road has been taken out from the middle of the plot is incorrect. The petitioner has physical possession of entire plot and the sub lease deed has also been done by the petitioner for the aforesaid plot. In such view of the matter, the benefit of zero period has been allowed from 21.10.2011 to 24.8.2012 only. 6. In the rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner has controverted the stand of the Respondent Authority taken in the counter-affidavit. In such view of the matter, the benefit of zero period has been allowed from 21.10.2011 to 24.8.2012 only. 6. In the rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner has controverted the stand of the Respondent Authority taken in the counter-affidavit. The petitioner submits that in view of the stand of the Respondent Authority in Para 8 of the counter-affidavit, the case of the petitioner is established beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner could not have commenced any activity upon the leased land in view of the admission of the respondents that on 27.9.2016 a revised leased plan of 566102.85 sq. meters was issued by the Project Department where it was mentioned that the lease plan would be subject to High Court order in Writ Petition No. 12300 of 2010, Writ Petition No. 12303 of 2010 and Writ Petition No. 32438 of 2012. A supplementary lease deed was executed in favour of petitioner on 9.1.2017 wherein it has been stated that due to revision in the sector layout plan of Sector Agricultural Greens 24 meter wide road has been incorporated to facilitate the villagers of Bisrakh to reach their cremation grounds straight from the community centre side village road resulting in the execution of the revised lease plan to be executed which has been made subject to the outcome of the writ petitions. The petitioner has been constantly requesting the Authority to remove the obstruction caused by the villagers in commencing actively upon the leased land as ins evident from letters dated 1.11.2013 and 0.8.2014. It is also stated that the State Government vide its order dated 5.12.2019 has evolved the policy for grant of zero period benefit. The Government Order dated 5.12.2019 has been duly adopted by the Respondent Authority in its 117th Board Meeting and an Officer Order dated 3.3.2010 has been issued. The zero period benefit is required to be given on the parameters laid down under the Officer Order dated 3.3.2020. The respondents are erroneously referring to and relying upon 103rd Board Meeting whereas the Court clearly mentioned 104th Board Meeting. However, now the Respondent Authority has issued the Office Order dated 3.3.2020 regarding grant of zero period benefit which itself is base on the Government Order dated 5.12.2019 the claim of the petitioner was liable to be considered in terms of the Government Order date 5.12.2019. However, now the Respondent Authority has issued the Office Order dated 3.3.2020 regarding grant of zero period benefit which itself is base on the Government Order dated 5.12.2019 the claim of the petitioner was liable to be considered in terms of the Government Order date 5.12.2019. The rejection of the claim vide the impugned order dated 23.12.2019 subsequent to the issue of the Government Order dated 5.12.2019 is thus vitiated. 7. This Court in view of the above factual background is required to examine as to whether the consideration of the zero period benefit by the impugned order dated 23.12.2019 is justified or the same is liable to be interfered in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. A perusal of the impugned order dated 23.12.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority reveals that the petitioner was allotted Plot No. FH-3 area 583566 sq. meters on 20.4.2011 but lease deed of only an area of 579191.10 sq. meters was got executed on 2.11.2012. Lease of an area of 4374.90 sq. meters was admittedly not got executed. The petitioner soon after execution of the lease deed dated 2.11.2012 appraised the Authority on 9.11.2013 annexing on site photographs that the plot allotted was not free from encroachments of farmers who were preventing the petitioner to construct boundary wall. A supplementary lease deed dated 4.12.2015 was got executed in respect of balance area of 4374.90 sq. meters. On 27.9.2016 a fresh modified lease plan was issued by the Authority which was subject to the outcome of Writ Petition No. 12300 of 2010, Writ Petition No. 12303 of 2010 and Writ Petition No. 32438 of 2012. A fresh lease deed dated 9.1.2017 was got executed which mentioned a 24 meters road across the plot allotted. The impugned order further records that the claim of the petitioner for grant of the zero period benefit was to be considered in terms of the direction of the Court dated 21.6.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 21878 of 2018 according to the prevailing policy of the Authority but the same has not been done. 9. The impugned order further records that the claim of the petitioner for grant of the zero period benefit was to be considered in terms of the direction of the Court dated 21.6.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 21878 of 2018 according to the prevailing policy of the Authority but the same has not been done. 9. We find that the Authority has proceeded to consider the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the agenda No. 103/14 in the 103rd Board Meeting even though the direction in the writ petition No. 21861 of 2018 (M/s. Gaursons Hi-Tech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and Others) was to decide as per the policy decision taken in 104th Board Meeting held on 14.3.2014. In fact the authority has proceeded to hold that the claim of the petitioner for grant of the zero period benefit cannot be considered as the policy under the 103rd meeting was not approved by the Government and thus was not effective and the claim is to be considered as per the prevailing policy. However, we find that the authority has not accorded consideration of the claim of the petitioner as per the prevailing policy for grant of zero period benefit rather has proceeded to reject the claim by holding that the claim cannot be considered under the policy under the 103rd Board Meeting. Thus the action of the Development Authority is not in accordance with law. 10. This Court further finds that when the claim of the petitioner for zero period benefit was pending consideration, the State Government issued Government Order dated 5.12.2019 laying down the parameters for grant of the zero period benefit. The said Government Order was adopted by the authority. Once the Government Order dated 5.12.2019 was in existence, the claim of the petitioner was required to be considered in terms of the parameters laid down in the Government Order dated 5.12.2019. We also take note of the fact that subsequently the authority has issued an office order dated 3.3.2020 adopting the Government Order dated 5.12.2019. This being so, we are of the view that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for grant of zero period benefit by the impugned order dated 23.12.2019 is wholly unjustified and the petitioner is entitled for grant of zero period benefit. 11. This being so, we are of the view that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for grant of zero period benefit by the impugned order dated 23.12.2019 is wholly unjustified and the petitioner is entitled for grant of zero period benefit. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 23.12.2019 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of zero period benefit is set aside. It is held that the petitioner is entitled for grant of zero period benefit from the date of allotment, i.e. 25.4.2011 to till date. The respondents-Authority are also directed to consider the sanctioning of the revised layout plan regarding FH-02, Agricultural Green, Greater Noida, in accordance with law considering the observations made herein-above.