Allahabad HC Dismisses Apartment Owners' Challenge to NOIDA's Grant of Additional FAR, Upholds Majority Consent
The Allahabad High Court held that 978 verified consents from flat owners outweighed an association's resolution, and that majority approval satisfies U.P. Apartment Act requirements for additional FAR.
Justice Arun Kumar, sitting singly at the Allahabad High Court, dismissed a writ petition filed by the Great Value Sharanam Apartment Owners Association challenging the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority's (NOIDA) grant of an additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.60 to a residential builder. The judgment, delivered on 1 July 2026, turned on three questions: whether the association had standing to override individual flat-owner consents, whether those consents satisfied the statutory majority standard under the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010, and whether NOIDA followed due process before sanctioning the additional FAR in December 2024. The court answered each question against the petitioner association, sustaining both the sanction order dated 19 December 2024 and the revisional order dated 27 October 2025.
The Dispute Before the Court
The project originated with a lease deed executed by NOIDA on 12 July 2010 in favour of the builder for land measuring 72,957.60 square metres. The Phase-I layout plan, sanctioned on 19 October 2010, identified a central portion of land and a separate plot as “future blocks.” A project brochure released at the same time similarly showed the disputed area as reserved for future development.
On 14 September 2012, NOIDA sanctioned the Phase-II layout plan, designating the disputed land for construction of “Iconic Towers” with a total approved construction area of 2,00,112 square metres. That plan was never challenged. In 2015, NOIDA executed a second lease deed granting an additional central portion measuring 8,255.65 square metres, raising the total project area to 81,213.25 square metres and the permissible construction area under the sanctioned FAR of 2.75 to 2,23,336 square metres.
A revised plan sanctioned on 19 January 2017 incorporated the new central portion, placed the Iconic Towers on hold, and once again showed the disputed land as reserved for future development. The sanctioned construction area was simultaneously reduced from 2,00,112 square metres to 1,81,051.389 square metres. A 2017 brochure reiterated the future-development designation. Twelve allottees challenged the revised 2017 map through Writ Petition No. 34927 of 2018, which was disposed of on 12 October 2018 with liberty to file a revision. The revision was dismissed on 28 August 2020. A subsequent writ, No. 6486 of 2021, was ultimately withdrawn on 3 September 2025 after the builder addressed amenity-related grievances.
Meanwhile, the builder sought additional FAR and collected consent forms from allottees. Out of 1,440 home buyers, 1,165 consented and 275 declined. NOIDA rejected the initial application on 7 July 2023 on the ground that objections from certain home buyers had not been resolved. The State Government, by order dated 24 July 2023, addressed zero-period benefits and directed that any future FAR grant be charged at prevailing rates. A Government Order dated 21 December 2023 extended legacy stalled project benefits to projects affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, permitting applications for additional FAR. NOIDA recognised the builder's project as a legacy stalled project on 10 April 2024.
Following public notices published on 16 May 2024, the petitioner association filed objections on 24 May 2024. Multiple hearing opportunities were given between July and September 2024. NOIDA then conducted a verification exercise, removing duplicates and invalid entries, and determined 978 valid consents and 228 valid objections. Satisfied that approximately 68% of all flat owners and 81% of participating allottees supported the proposal, NOIDA granted additional FAR by order dated 19 December 2024. A revised map sanction covering the land reserved for future development followed on 11 June 2025. The petitioner association filed a revision before the State Government, which was dismissed on 27 October 2025 on three grounds: lack of representative standing, adequate due process, and non-maintainability. The present writ petition challenged the orders of 27 October 2025 and 24 July 2023 passed by the State Government and the orders of 19 December 2024 and 11 June 2025 passed by NOIDA.
The Legal Contest
Senior Counsel for the association argued that the grant of additional FAR of 0.60 permitted construction over an extra 48,728 square metres, substantially increasing project density. He contended that consent forms collected in 2017–2018 were blank and generic, obtained under coercive circumstances because signing the maintenance agreement containing the consent clause was a mandatory condition for receiving possession and execution of the sale deed. Such forms, the petitioner submitted, could not constitute “informed consent” within the meaning of the law.
The association relied on the Bombay High Court's coordinate bench decision in Madhuvihar Cooperative Housing Society v. M/s Jayantilal Investments (First Appeal No. 786 of 2004, decided 7 October 2010), which held under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act that blanket consent obtained at the time of possession cannot qualify as informed consent. It also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Supertech Limited v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 1, for the proposition that any development reducing each flat owner's undivided interest in common areas violates Section 5 of the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010, without owner consent. The association further invoked the Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority, reported in 2013 (9) ADJ 594, which held that FAR is property in which apartment owners have an interest and that majority consent by resolution is necessary before a promoter purchases additional FAR.
The association also pressed that consents obtained in 2017–2018 could not authorise a layout sanction in 2024; that NOIDA's earlier rejection on 7 July 2023 had attained finality since the builder never challenged it; and that the State Government's order dated 24 July 2023 was passed ex parte without hearing the apartment owners, tainting the entire subsequent process.
Senior Counsel for the builder countered that the disputed land had been designated for future development in every sanctioned plan and both project brochures since 2010. He argued that out of 1,440 flat owners, 1,165 consented, that sale deeds were executed for 159 non-consenting owners without any adverse consequence, and that coercion was thus disproved. Invoking Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, he submitted that even a consent obtained by coercion is voidable, not void, and must be challenged by the signatory individually before a competent court. He relied on the Division Bench decision in Prachi v. Shailendra Kumar, reported in 2019 (9) ADJ 632, and the Supreme Court's decisions in Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558, Ram Sakal Singh v. Mosamat Monako Devi (Dead) and Others, (1997) 5 SCC 192, and Khursheed and Another v. Shaqoor, 2024 SCC Online SC 2929, for the principle that fraud and coercion are questions of fact requiring a full civil trial. He also argued that the Designarch judgment itself establishes majority, not unanimous, consent as the standard, and that 81% support plainly satisfied it.
NOIDA adopted the builder's submissions and additionally stressed the verification exercise it conducted and the multiple hearing opportunities it provided, including public notices in newspapers.
How the Court Reasoned
The court framed four questions. It addressed standing and the validity of consents together, then turned to statutory compliance under the U.P. Apartment Act and RERA, and finally examined the due process challenge.
Standing and consent validity. The court observed that the petitioner association did not dispute the existence of a large number of consent forms. Its case rested entirely on allegations of coercion and uninformed consent. Yet not a single individual flat owner whose consent form was relied upon had approached the court seeking cancellation, filed a civil suit, or even issued a formal notice withdrawing consent. The challenge was brought exclusively by office-bearers relying on a general body meeting attended by only 93 members whose names were not disclosed.
The court held that a representative body cannot, by passing a resolution, invalidate contractual declarations furnished by hundreds of individual apartment owners who continue to stand by them. A collective resolution cannot retrospectively revoke individual declarations executed by separate apartment owners, and the association cannot exercise a power of rescission on behalf of non-objecting owners.
On the legal consequence of alleged coercion, the court applied Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, holding that a consent allegedly procured by coercion is voidable, not void. It remains valid until the signatory takes active steps before a competent civil court and obtains a formal declaration of invalidity. Since no consenting allottee had done so, the court held that legal presumption operated in favour of validity. It affirmed that allegations of fraud and systematic coercion are intensely disputed questions of fact requiring full trial and cross-examination, and cannot be resolved on summary pleadings under Article 226.
U.P. Apartment Act and RERA compliance. The court rejected the association's argument that Section 5 of the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 required unanimous consent. It read Designarch as having clearly established that a valid majority decision of apartment owners suffices for the purchase and utilisation of additional FAR. With 978 verified consents against 228 valid objections — representing 81% of participating allottees — the majority standard was plainly met.
The court distinguished Supertech on the facts. In that case, the developer had built over designated green open spaces and gardens, reducing mandatory safety distances between towers without disclosure to buyers. Here, no common areas, parks, roadways, or shared resident amenities were being reduced or modified. The proposed construction was confined to a plot consistently designated as a future development area across all sanctioned plans and brochures from the project's inception. NOIDA confirmed that urban planning regulations regarding population density, parking, open space indices, and fire safety margins continued to be satisfied.
The court further held that allottees who purchased flats with full knowledge that the disputed parcel was reserved for future development, and who accepted possession and conveyance on that basis, were estopped from contending that no future development could ever take place there. It observed that apartment purchasers do not acquire a vested right that the density of a township shall remain frozen, and that what the law itself permits cannot be treated as an invasion of vested rights merely because population density subsequently increases.
On the argument that 2017–2018 consents could not authorise a 2024 sanction, the court noted that the consent instruments expressly authorised the developer to utilise the maximum additional purchasable FAR available under the applicable building regulations, which permitted up to 0.75 FAR under the 2015 amendments. The developer sought 0.60 FAR, within that authorised ceiling. Since the consents were never legally revoked or set aside, they remained valid.
Due process and finality of the 2023 rejection. The court rejected the argument that NOIDA's rejection on 7 July 2023 had attained finality. That rejection was explicitly based on unresolved municipal maintenance concerns, not a finding that consents were invalid. The order itself acknowledged the existence of over a thousand consents. Once the developer addressed maintenance issues and the project was recognised as a legacy stalled project under the Government Order dated 21 December 2023, NOIDA was fully entitled to consider a fresh application.
The court found that NOIDA followed proper procedure before issuing the sanction: it published public notices on 16 May 2024, provided multiple hearing opportunities between July and September 2024, and conducted a signature-by-signature verification exercise to determine the true majority view. The challenge to the State Government's order of 24 July 2023 was also rejected on the ground that the revision concerned only zero-period benefits and applicable rates, not the grant of additional FAR itself, and the association was not a necessary party to those proceedings. Even assuming any procedural infirmity in the State Government proceedings, no prejudice was established because NOIDA's final sanction rested on its own independent consideration.
Order
The court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit. It sustained the NOIDA sanction order dated 19 December 2024 and the State Government's revisional order dated 27 October 2025. The builder was directed to ensure strict compliance with all conditions imposed by NOIDA, including structural safety regulations, fire safety standards, environmental norms, and parking requirements. No order as to costs was made.