Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. M. SAHAI, A. S. SRIVASTAVA
PURSHOTTAM DASS TANDON - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P.LUCKNOW - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 2293 Of 1969
Decided On : 03/25/1986
The Court examined the validity of various Government Orders (GOs) issued between 1959 and 1981, pertaining to the renewal of leases of Nazul land in Civil Lines, Allahabad. The Court analyzed the rights of the lessees, the role of the government, and the principles of fairness, promissory estoppel, and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that the lessees had a right to get fresh leases executed in their favor, subject to certain conditions. The Court also held that the GOs issued after 1976 were invalid because they were repugnant to the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The Court further held that the lessees who had deposited at least one installment prior to 1965 or in response to a notice by the Collector had a right to get fresh leases on the terms and conditions mentioned in the 1959 and 1960 GOs. The Court also held that those lessees to whom no notice was given by the Collector were entitled to be treated similarly to those who had received notices. The Court directed the government to grant fresh leases to all eligible lessees and to determine the premium and other charges in accordance with the 1959-60 GOs. The Court also directed the government to construct a colony to house the out-house dwellers residing in the bungalows.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were lessees of Nazul land in Civil Lines, Allahabad. The leases were expiring in 1959. The government issued various GOs between 1959 and 1981, pertaining to the renewal of leases. The petitioners challenged the validity of the GOs and sought a direction to the government to renew their leases on the terms and conditions mentioned in the 1959 and 1960 GOs.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the lessees had a right to get fresh leases executed in their favor, subject to certain conditions. The Court also held that the GOs issued after 1976 were invalid because they were repugnant to the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The Court further held that the lessees who had deposited at least one installment prior to 1965 or in response to a notice by the Collector had a right to get fresh leases on the terms and conditions mentioned in the 1959 and 1960 GOs. The Court also held that those lessees to whom no notice was given by the Collector were entitled to be treated similarly to those who had received notices. The Court directed the government to grant fresh leases to all eligible lessees and to determine the premium and other charges in accordance with the 1959-60 GOs. The Court also directed the government to construct a colony to house the out-house dwellers residing in the bungalows.
Issues: 1. Whether the lessees had a right to get fresh leases executed in their favor. 2. Whether the GOs issued after 1976 were valid. 3. Whether the lessees who had deposited at least one installment prior to 1965 or in response to a notice by the Collector had a right to get fresh leases on the terms and conditions mentioned in the 1959 and 1960 GOs. 4. Whether those lessees to whom no notice was given by the Collector were entitled to be treated similarly to those who had received notices.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the lessees had a right to get fresh leases executed in their favor, subject to certain conditions. The Court relied on the following principles: (a) The lessees had been in possession of the land for a long time and had made substantial investments in the properties. (b) The government had issued various GOs declaring its policy to renew the leases. (c) The government had accepted rent and premium from the lessees, which amounted to a recognition of their tenancy. 2. The Court held that the GOs issued after 1976 were invalid because they were repugnant to the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The Court relied on the following principles: (a) The Act was a special law enacted to prevent the concentration of urban land in the hands of a few persons. (b) The GOs were inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and, therefore, could not be given effect to. 3. The Court held that the lessees who had deposited at least one installment prior to 1965 or in response to a notice by the Collector had a right to get fresh leases on the terms and conditions mentioned in the 1959 and 1960 GOs. The Court relied on the following principles: (a) The lessees had complied with the terms and conditions of the GOs. (b) The government had accepted the deposits made by the lessees, which amounted to a recognition of their right to renewal. 4. The Court held that those lessees to whom no notice was given by the Collector were entitled to be treated similarly to those who had received notices. The Court relied on the following principles: (a) The government had a duty to treat all lessees equally. (b) The failure to give notice to some lessees was arbitrary and discriminatory.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petitions and directed the government to grant fresh leases to all eligible lessees and to determine the premium and other charges in accordance with the 1959-60 GOs. The Court also directed the government to construct a colony to house the out-house dwellers residing in the bungalows.
( 1 ) RENEWAL of Nazul land leases of Civil Lines, Allahabad, sprawled over an area of approximately 662 acres, one of the poshest localities of the town, renowned for its quiet serenity, famous for its, till recently, sophisticated looking marketing centre, inhabited by Judges, Lawyers, doctors, educationists, journalists, businessmen and now by a neo-rich class as well with no ostensible means but affluent and powerful, least but no less important out-house dwellers with no right or title but vote bank, has been eluding solution for more than two decades now. If the first phase beginning from March, 1959, when government issued order laying down conditions for renewal of leases, came to an end in April, 1965 when government directed the District Magistrate to renew leases of those who complied with modified conditions was marked with representations and objections by lease-holders Association to what appeared to them to be unreasonable restrictions on right of alienation and demand of exhorbitant rate of ground rent and premium then the second and third phases namely, from 1965 to 1976 and 1976 to 1981 were marked with spurt of legislations and government orders directed towards urban socialisation with its resultant effect on narrowing down of terms and conditions for renewal. With swift shift in socio and economic set up of the society, specially after 1965, the government changed its policy and the concessions granted in 1960 and 1965 were not only withdrawn by superseding those orders but fresh conditions reducing area and enhancing rent and premium, were laid down. Even in those cases where lessees had complied with terms and conditions and order had been passed, leases were not renewed thus furnishing foundation for invoking doctrine of promissory estoppel, developed by English and American Courts as rule of equity, given new dimensions by our Supreme Court by extending it against government and Corporations not only as a weapon of defence but as cause of action as well. But the, most pungent and venomous attack was on favour showered by government on few with power sack or money bag and renewal of their leases thus denying equality guaranteed by part III of the Constitution to other similarly situated. Creation of parallel hierarchy by defining family and reducing area, acting arbitrarily in implementation of government orders were vigorously pressed. Principle of offer made by government and its acceptance by lessees by complying with terms and conditions thus resulting in binding contract was also put forward. Failure to issue notices to individual, lessees refusal of renewal of leases resulting in special injury, binding nature of executive orders, fairness in government action, reasonable behaviour by public authorities who have no unfettered discretion were also advanced by various counsel who urged that government should be pinned down to its earlier promise and assurances as it was government which was guilty of unwarranted procrastination. Paradoxically what appeared to be unreasonable and exhorbitant in 1959 and 1960 delayed the matters for so long is now the demand, the relief sought in these petitions. How and why the policy of government underwent change; what effect it had on right of lease-holders; can the government be held to be bound by the promise extended by it in 1959 and 1960; is the government guilty of picking and choosing lessees without there being any intelligent differentia, and, therefore, it should be directed to renew leases of others as well, are the orders issued after 1976 had being contrary to law of the land; is renewal of lease of Nazul land a concession which cannot be enforced through Court etc. ; can Mandamus be issued in 1986 directing the government to do what it ought to have done in 1959 or 1960 or even in 1965, could petitioners approach this court for issue of Mandamus in 1981; are issues which emerge out of orders passed by government from time to time and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
