IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SALIL KUMAR RAI, ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, JJ.
Smt.Ram Pyari Devi And Others – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondent
Writ C No. 32728 of 2000
Decided on : 31-05-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - U.P. Public Premises Act - Section 2 - Power of High Court to issue certain writs - Commercial portion of land - Held, Petitioners have approached court for enforcement rights against State raise issues relating to powers jurisdiction of State authorities - Petition is maintainable argument of counsel for petitioners demand executed by respondent quashed directed to consider application of petitioners for residential portion petitioners to fulfill formalities to execute sale deed for completion of formalities deed of executed petitioners - Writ petition is disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.
1. Heard Sri Shyamal Narayan, the counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ravi Kant Senior Advocate along with Sri Gajendra Pratap, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sri Nath Dwivedi, the counsel for respondent no. 4 and Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava, the Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
2. By way of present writ petition, the writ petitioners have challenged the demand notice dated 24.7.2000 issued by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur to respondent no. 4 to initiate the proceeding of freehold land of area 43,000 sq. ft. in Nazul Plot No. 103, Mohalla Arazi Chhawani City Gorakhpur. Subsequently, during the pendency of present writ petition, Prayer no. 1A was also added for quashing the sale deed/freehold deed dated 26.7.2000 executed by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur in favour of respondent no. 4.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is as follows : -
4. The ancestor of the petitioners - late Madan Lal Tekariwal was granted lease of Bungalow No. 07, Gorakhpur (subsequently which was re-numbered as Plot No. 103) which was having total area 66,795 sq. ft. by way of two lease deeds dated 1.11.1954 and another dated 3.12.1954. As per the terms and conditions of above lease deeds, lessee Sri Madan Lal Tekariwal had to construct residential building to let out the same to government officers. The above lease deed was for a period of 30 years which could be renewed upto a maximum period of 90 days. It was further mentioned in the terms and conditions of lease that the lessee shall let out the building exclusively for the residence of gazetted officer on rent and it shall not be occupied by him. After expiry of period on 30.4.1975, the lessee - Madan Lal Tekariwal also filed an application dated 8.7.1975 before the District Magistrate for renewal of his lease which remained pending till his death. After the death of lessee - Madan Lal Tekariwal, the petitioners being his successors moved an application dated 9.8.1977 for mutation of their name as heirs of late Madan Lal Tekariwal and also prayed that lease may be renewed in their favour. The above application of the petitioners was forwarded by the District Magistrate to In-charge, Nazul Nagar Palika, Gorakhpur for taking further action. The In-charge, Nazul Nagar Palika, Gorakhpur by letter dated 25.10.1977 informed the District Magistrate that the proceeding for re-vesting the land in question has been pending against lessee - Madan Lal Tekariwal, therefore, the names of the petitioners cannot be mutated as the heirs of Madan Lal Tekariwal and notice has been issued to the petitioners for the same, therefore, the question of renewal does not arise. But subsequently, there is no order on record that any order was passed on the application dated 7.10.1977 of the petitioners by the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate allotted the building constructed over a part of the land in dispute to respondent no. 4 on 27.7.1982 under Act No. 13 of 1972 with the stipulation that respondent no. 4 will pay the rent to lessee - Banwari Lal (petitioner no. 2). It is relevant to mention here that at the time of aforesaid allotment, the respondent no. 4 was an M.L.A. Thereafter, two renewal applications submitted by the petitioners were rejected by orders dated 9.6.1985 and 7.7.1985 on the ground that the petitioners had violated the terms and conditions of lease by making construction thereon without permission and it was further directed by these two orders that the petitioners should remove the illegal constructions within a period of 30 days. In case, they failed to remove the construction, then they will be evicted from the land in dispute including the building situated over it. Thereafter, in the year 1989, proceedings under the Public Premises Act were also initiated against the petitioners for their eviction from the land in dispute which remained pending. Thereafter, the State Government issued Government Order dated 1.12.1998.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of freehold rights must be based on factual correctness and adherence to the legal provisions, especially in the context of land dis....
The court ruled that an unregistered lease does not confer rights, and amendments changing the nature of a petition are impermissible if no enforceable rights exist.
Sale deeds executed after the acquisition notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are void, and subsequent purchasers cannot claim title or challenge the acquisition.
Tenancy rights and renewal conditions defined under the Transfer of Property Act, emphasizing statutory tenancy post-expiration.
(1) Statutory Authority – State Government / or KMDA which is a statutory authority of the State Government, cannot through a subsequent policy alter the conditions of original allotment on the basic....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.