IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIVEK CHAUDHARY, MANISH KUMAR, JJ.
M/S Sundaram Developers Pvt. Ltd. A Comp. Incorporated & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. Through Its Prin. Secy. Housing Lko. and Ors. - Respondents
Writ - C No. 9211 of 2011, Writ - C Nos. 5539, 5591 of 2013
Decided On : 05-02-2024
Land Acquisition - Municipal Corporation - U.P. Municipal Corporation Act 1959, Section 129 - The court dismissed Writ Petition No.5539 (M/B) of 2013 and Writ Petition No.5591 (M/B) of 2013. The Writ Petition No.9211 (M/B) of 2011 has become infructuous as petitioner of the same, now after cancellation of lease deed, has no right over the land in dispute. Interim orders are discharged.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved three writ petitions being heard and decided together by a common judgment. The first writ petition was filed by a developer claiming interference in possession of the land in dispute, the second and third writ petitions challenged the cancellation of a lease deed executed in favor of a housing cooperative society.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the resolution of the Municipal Corporation to allot the land was illegal and without authority of law, and the lease deed was consequently cancelled. The court dismissed the writ petitions and discharged interim orders.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the resolution of the Municipal Corporation to allot the land and the subsequent cancellation of the lease deed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the resolution of the Municipal Corporation was without authority of law and a fraud upon the statute, and consequently, the lease deed could not stand. The court also found that no case for interference with the cancellation of the lease deed was made out.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions and discharged interim orders.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri N.K. Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sachin Garg, learned counsels for petitioner in Writ Petition No.9211 (M/B) of 2011 & Writ Petition No.5539 (M/B) of 2013, Sri Sachin Garg, learned counsel for petitioner in Writ Petition No.5591 (M/B) of 2013 and Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for Lucknow Municipal Corporation, Sri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for Lucknow Development Authority and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondents. The arguments were made by Sri N.K. Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sachin Garg, learned counsel for petitioner in Writ Petition No.5539 (M/B) of 2013. Sri Sachin Garg, Advocate appearing in connected Writ Petition No.5591 (M/B) of 2013 has adopted all the arguments of Writ Petition 5539 (M/B) of 2013.
2. These three writ petitions being Writ Petition No.9211 (M/B) of 2011, Writ petition no. 5539 (M/B) of 2013 and Writ C No. 5591 (M/B) of 2013 are being heard and decided together by a common judgment. Writ Petition No.9211 (M/B) of 2011 filed by Ms. Sundaram Developers Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow could have been decided on the very first date itself, however, an order of status-quo was passed in the same on 16.09.2011 which continues till date. By way of Writ Petition No.9211 (M/B) of 2011, petitioner approached this Court claiming that, though, land in dispute bearing plot nos. P-9, P-10, P-12, P-13 (Part of Khasra Plot Nos. 209, 220, 221, 223 & 224) situated at Village Jiamau, Ward Vikrmaditya, Lucknow is not notified for acquisition but still in the garb of acquisition respondents are trying to interfere in possession of petitioner and thus got an order of status-quo. In the counter affidavit, respondents accepted that the land in dispute is not under acquisition and they have no claim but, still the writ petition was never disposed of and was got connected with the other two aforesaid writ petitions which are on entirely different causes. Writ Petition No.5539 (M/B) of 2013 and Writ Petition No.5591 (M/B) of 2013 challenge order dated 01.06.2013 passed by respondent no.2 cancelling lease deed dated 24.06.1995 executed in favour of M/s Mansarover Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. (M/s MSAS). Further, a mandamus is sought directing respondents not to interfere in their peaceful possession over the property in dispute. Facts of both Writ Petition No.5539 (M/B) of 2013 and Writ Petition No.5591 (M/B) of 2013 are nearly same and thus, are being heard and decided together. No stay order was granted in the aforesaid two writ petitions which had entirely separate cause of action, however, in view of status-quo order passed in Writ Petition No.9211 (M/B) of 2011, respondents did not take any steps to take possession of the property in dispute through-out the last ten years.
3. The order dated 01.06.2013 cancels the lease deed executed in favour of M/s Mansarovar Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. (M/s MSAS) on the grounds that as per the terms of lease internal or external development is not effected and even the layout plan of the land is not presented before the Municipal Corporation, despite specific order of High Court dated 30.11.2002, which provided for submission of layout plan within ten days of handing over of possession; though the land was to be developed for the members of cooperative society but neither the list of members of cooperative society, nor any intimation of transfer of land to its members was provided and, in fact, the entire land was sold for earning profits; and further details were not provided to the Municipal Corporation which were repeatedly asked for by the Municipal Corporation.
4. Facts of case are that Municipal Corporation Lucknow in its meeting held on 05.01.1995 passed a resolution No.70 whereby it provided for execution of a lease for 30 years of property bearing Khasra No.209, 220, 221, 222, 224 total area 4 Bigha, 12 Biswa, 2 Biswansi situated at Village Jiamau, Pargana and Tehsil-Lucknow at the rate of Rs.2,50,
M/s Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. And Others Vs. State of U.P. and another
State Bank of India Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and Others
ITC Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others
B.L. Sreedhar & Others Vs. K.M. Munireddy (Dead) & Others
Kamaljit Singh Vs. Sarabjit Singh
State of U.P. Vs. Sudheer Kumar Singh
Uddar Gagan Properties Ltd. v. Sant Singh
Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India
NOIDA Entrepreneurs Assn. v. NOIDA
Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia
S.P. Kapoor (Dr.) v. State of H.P.
Zenit Mataplast (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of W.B.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India
Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther v. Kerala Financial Corpn.
Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P.
M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu
Commr. of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji
Sirsi Municipality v. Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the resolution of the Municipal Corporation to allot the land was illegal and without authority of law, leading to the cancellation of the lea....
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.
The court established that procedural impropriety and lack of jurisdiction in cancelling a building license and khata, without due notice, violate principles of natural justice, rendering such orders....
Reservation lapses under Section 127 MRTP Act if no acquisition steps within six months of valid purchase notice, upheld even if composite and receipt confirmed by authority's actions and RTI despite....
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Ravish Agrawal, Sanjay Agrawal For the Respondent : Pushpendra Yadav, R. N. Singh, Akshay Pawar
Public land designated for a specific purpose cannot be acquired if re-designated for another use, and inaction by claimants can result in dismissal of subsequent challenges based on laches.
Public landowner has preferential redevelopment rights on reserved slum land; conditional NOC cancellation valid for developer's failure to provide compliant plans for public amenities, subordinating....
Reservation of land under the MRTP Act lapses if the land is not acquired within ten years from the date of publication of the final Development Plan and no declaration under Section 19 of the Act of....
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.