The case dates back to 2011 when the two petitioners received land from the government. Initially, they owned a 10,870 square metre plot in Rohillapur village, Sector 132, which the state government had acquired from them in 2006 for development purposes. However, the high court had quashed the acquisition in 2009. Subsequently, the Authority compensated the villagers by transferring land of equivalent size in Sadarpur, Sector 45, through an exchange deed in 2011.

In 2021, the petitioners sought permission from the Authority to develop group housing on the Sector 45 land. However, the Authority rejected their application in September 2023, citing non-compliance with its 2010 Building Regulations, which require a lease deed to be signed for such applications. A revision petition filed with the state government was also dismissed in April 2024.

The petitioners argued that the deed of exchange was a valid transfer document, granting them full rights over the land they had been handed. They claimed that the Authority's rejection violated their constitutional rights to property under Article 300A, which includes construction rights. They further contended that the Authority’s interpretation of the building regulations was overly restrictive and contrary to legal principles protecting property rights.

In contrast, the Authority argued that its rejection was based on three points: the mandatory requirement of a lease deed under the building regulations, the undeveloped status of the Sector 45 plot with no designated land use, and the potential impact on its lease-based revenue model.

The court, however, found these arguments insufficient. On 22nd November, Justice Alok Mathur deemed the Authority's rejection "illegal" and directed it to conduct a fresh hearing on the petitioners' application, stressing their constitutional rights as property owners. The court ruled that the deed of exchange between the petitioners and the Authority constituted a valid transfer deed under the Transfer of Property Act and the UP Industrial Area Development Act, 1976.

The court remarked, "We find no reason for the Authority not to consider the petitioners' application for building plan sanction, and the reasons for rejection are clearly illegal and arbitrary." The Authority was ordered to pass a fresh decision within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

This ruling sets an important precedent for similar cases and highlights the need for administrative bodies to properly consider property rights when interpreting regulations.