Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 23 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Technology Park Limited (Appellant) vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (Respondents); also related appeals 24159‑24161 of 2017.
  • Appeals stem from High Court of Judicature at Allahabad orders in CMWP Nos. 65656/2006 and 14213/2007 dated 06‑04‑2010, which had quashed the Greater Noida Authority’s order dated 11‑10‑2006.
  • Core issues: (A) applicability of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; (B) validity of land acquisition notification dated 10‑04‑2006 (Section 4(1)); (C) legality of the Compromise Deed dated 09‑01‑1992 (cancelled on 17‑08‑1996, set aside by High Court, re‑cancelled on 11‑10‑2006 and again set aside); (D) rejection of layout plans for the appellant’s development project.
  • The Compromise Deed of 01‑09‑1992, signed between Shri Yogendra Narayan (Chairman, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority) and Shri Shaukat Rai Malhotra (Managing Director, Technology Parks Ltd.), stipulated:
  • Withdrawal of writs and impleadment applications pending in various courts.
  • Submission by TPL of building plans for a mixed‑use complex at Surajpur within three months of Gazette notification, with the Authority to consider and possibly approve them.
  • Permission for TPL to continue construction of: (A) Research & Development Centre, (B) Self‑ware Development Centre, (C) Central Teel Rooms, (D) Institute of Higher Learning/Corporate Retreat Centre, (E) World Trade Centre, (F) Roads, overhead water tanks, electricity supply, sewerage, etc.
  • Restriction that TPL may not commence any other industrial or residential construction except those listed, pending Authority’s approval of maps and plans.
  • Obligation for TPL to pay prescribed charges within three months of demand.

Supreme Court Reasoning & Directions

1. The Court affirmed the High Court’s decision to quash the 11‑Oct‑2006 order and held that the observations directing fresh orders after hearing were unnecessary once the order was set aside.

2. Consequently, the 1992 Compromise Deed remains in force and continues to govern the parties’ rights and obligations.

3. The Court noted that the Deed expressly allows TPL to file its building‑plan application, and the Authority must consider it and pass appropriate orders within two months of receipt.

4. The Court ordered that the appeals (Civil Appeal Nos. 4947/2017 and 4948/2017) stand disposed of in accordance with the signed order, and that any pending applications, if any, be disposed of.

5. For the separate set of appeals (Civil Appeal Nos. 24159‑24161/2017), the Court found no error in the High Court’s findings and dismissed those appeals, also directing disposal of any pending applications.

Final Outcome

  • The 11‑Oct‑2006 Greater Noida order is quashed; the 1992 Compromise Deed is reinstated.
  • Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority must consider TPL’s development plan within two months and may approve the specified constructions.
  • Civil Appeals 4947/2017 and 4948/2017 are disposed of per the signed order; Civil Appeals 24159‑24161/2017 are dismissed.
  • All pending applications related to these appeals are ordered disposed of.

Topics: Legal Judgment, Real Estate Development