Back
2020 Supreme(All) 623
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PANKAJ MITHAL, VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, JJ.
M/s Shakuntla Educational And Welfare Society - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others - Respondents
WRIT -C No. 28968 of 2018, 68724 of 2015, 45929, 46993 of 2016, 17609, 23357, 25359, 40702, 52310, 61882 of 2017, 2452, 7142, 9247, 14730, 20053, 20158, 20217, 25994, 36669, 28956 of 2018
Decided On : 28-05-2020
For the Petitioner: Ashish Kumar Counsel
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Aditya Bhushan Singhal
POINT OF LAW:
State Government may, at any time, either on its own motion or on application made to it in this behalf, call for the records of any case disposed of or order passed by the [Authority or the Chairman) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed or direction issued and may pass such order or issue such direction in relation thereto as it may think fit:
Provided that the State Government shall not pass an order prejudicial to any person without affording such person a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Headnote:
Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 5A – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Quashing of demand of additional amount – Petitioner is an educational society registered under Societies Act Societies Registration Act, 1860 – It had invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court for the quashing of demand of additional amount in respect of land leased out to it, the resolution of the Board of Y.E.I.D.A. and Government Order whereby aforesaid demand was permitted and was allowed to be recovered from allottees – Petitioner has also sought a direction that State as well as Y.E.I.D.A. be restrained from demanding any additional amount over and above one mentioned in lease deed – Held, Court do not find any order passed by Y.E.I.D.A. or its Chairman which may have been questioned in this petition rather it is only a demand notice issued by Special Executive Officer, who is neither Chairman or Authority that has been challenged – Plea of alternative remedy is of no avail – Court see no good reason to relegate petitioner to alternate remedy instead of answering questions on judicial side – Impugned Government Order is declared to be illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently all demands raised on its basis are quashed – Writ Petitions Allowed (Paras 116, 117, 119, 120)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner is an educational society registered under the Societies Act Societies Registration Act, 1860. It had invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court for the quashing of the demand of additional amount in respect of the land leased out to it, the resolution of the Board of Y.E.I.D.A. dated 15.09.2014 and the Government Order dated 29.08.2014 whereby the aforesaid demand was permitted and was allowed to be recovered from the allottees. The petitioner has also sought a direction that the State as well as Y.E.I.D.A. be restrained from demanding any additional amount over and above the one mentioned in the lease deed.
Findings of the court:
Admittedly, Y.E.I.D.A. is an ‘authority’ constituted under Section 3 of the Industrial Development Act, U.P. Industrial Development Act, 1976 and one of its functions as enumerated under Section 6 of the said Act is to allocate and transfer either by way of sale or lease or otherwise plots of land for industrial, commercial or residential purposes. It is in furtherance of its above proclaimed activities that the petitioner has been leased out the land in question – This apart as the issues raised in this petition are all of legal nature and are not dependent upon any disputed facts, we see no good reason to relegate the petitioner to alternate remedy instead of answering the questions on the judicial side – Court do not find any order passed by Y.E.I.D.A. or its Chairman which may have been questioned in this petition rather it is only a demand notice issued by Special Executive Officer, who is neither Chairman or Authority that has been challenged – Plea of alternative remedy is of no avail – Court see no good reason to relegate petitioner to alternate remedy instead of answering questions on judicial side – Impugned Government Order is declared to be illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently all demands raised on its basis are quashed.
Result: Writ Petitions Allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. All the above writ petitions are based upon similar and identical facts and challenges the action of the State of U.P. and the Y.E.I.D.A. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority regarding demand of extra amount from the petitioners in respect of plots of land leased out to all of them separately and independently.
2. The Writ Petition No. 28968 of 2018 of M/s Shakuntla Educational and Welfare Society is taken as the lead case to which counsel for the parties have consented during the course of the arguments. Accordingly, we narrate below only the facts in relation to the said writ petition and proceeds to refer the petitioner therein as the sole petitioner.
3. The petitioner is an educational society registered under the Societies Act Societies Registration Act, 1860. It had invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court for the quashing of the demand of additional amount in respect of the land leased out to it, the resolution of the Board of Y.E.I.D.A. dated 15.09.2014 and the Government Order dated 29.08.2014 whereby the aforesaid demand was permitted and was allowed to be recovered from the allottees. The petitioner has also sought a direction that the State as well as Y.E.I.D.A. be restrained from demanding any additional amount over and above the one mentioned in the lease deed.
4. In order to appreciate the controversy and the issues arising in the above petition(s), we consider it appropriate to narrate the facts in brief which have led to the impugned demand, passing of the resolution by the Board of Y.E.I.D.A. and the issuance of the Government Order dated 29.08.2014.
5. A vast area of land was acquired by the State of U.P. in district Gautam Budh Nagar for public purpose for the benefit of Y.E.I.D.A. After the acquisition was completed, Y.E.I.D.A. invited applications for the allotment of plots of land of 25 to 250 acres in the area developed by it. In response to the notice inviting applications for such allotment, the petitioner applied for allotment of 50 acres of the land within the institutional area for establishing a University.
6. The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 14.09.2009 that a plot of 50 acres has been reserved for it. Subsequently, a letter of allotment dated 10.12.2009 was issued to the petitioner allotting plot No.2 in sector 7-A having an area of 50 acres equivalent to 202350 sq. meters.
7. The aforesaid allotment letter in unequivocal terms provided that the premium of the land allotted is Rs.1055/-per sq. meters and the petitioner has to pay E.D.C. External Development Charge @ Rs.574/-per sq. meters.
8. It also mentioned that as the petitioner had deposited 10% of the premium amount the balance 90% shall be payable in monthly installments as specified in the chart contained therein.
9. The allotment order categorically stated that the lease deed shall be executed and the possession of the land shall be handed over after completion of the acquisition proceedings, though the land is in possession of Y.E.I.D.A.
10. On the basis of the aforesaid reservation and allotment letters, lease deed of the land was executed in favour of the petitioner on 22.01.2010 for a period of 90 years after the petitioner had substantially complied with the terms and conditions of the allotment and had deposited the necessary amounts. The lease deed in addition to the amounts payable by the petitioner as mentioned in the allotment letter further provided for the payment of 2.5% of the total premium of the plot per year as annual lease rent. The lease deed was very specific and reiterated that the premium amount was Rs.1055/-per sq. meter and E.D.C. as Rs.574/-per sq. meter as was mentioned in the allotment letter.
11. At the time of possession when the land was surveyed and measured it was found that the aforesaid plot allotted to the petitioner had an excess area of about 2 acres. This excess land was also leased out to the petitioner on the same terms and conditions and a supplementar
