Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, JJ.
Shiv Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh Thru. Prin. Secy. To Govt. Deptt. Of Housing And Urban Planning Lko. And Others – Respondent
WRIT -C No. -4456 of 2024
Decided On : 09-07-2024
PROPERTY - ALLOTMENT AND TRANSFER OF PROPERTY - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 5; Registration Act, 1908 - Section 18 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, which allows a living person to convey property, and Section 18 of the Registration Act, which states that registration of a Will is optional. The court interpreted these sections to conclude that the petitioner could not claim rights over the property based on an unregistered Will or an agreement to sell, as the original allotment was extinguished when the allottee sought an exchange for another property. The court emphasized that the rights of the original allottee were relinquished, and thus the petitioner had no legal basis for his claims.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an order from the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) rejecting his claim to a flat originally allotted to Sri Ram Pyare Panika. The petitioner claimed to have purchased the flat through a notarized agreement and a Will executed by Panika before his death. However, the LDA contended that Panika had relinquished his rights to the flat when he requested an exchange for another property, which he later sought to refund due to financial constraints.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the original allotment of the flat was extinguished when Panika requested an exchange for another property and subsequently sought a refund. The court ruled that the petitioner could not claim rights over the flat based on the unregistered documents he presented, as they did not confer any legal title or interest in the property.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had any legal rights to the flat based on the agreement and Will executed by Sri Ram Pyare Panika. 2. Whether the LDA's actions in rejecting the petitioner's claims were lawful.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rights of the original allottee were extinguished when he sought an exchange for another property and later requested a refund. The unregistered agreement and Will did not confer any rights to the petitioner, as the original allotment was never validly transferred to him.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, allowing the LDA to take possession of the flat in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.
1. This petition has been filed praying for quashing of order dated 08.05.2024 passed by the Vice-Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “opposite party no.3”), where he has rejected the representation of the petitioner with respect to Flat no.-152, Ist Floor, Rupayan Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and also praying for a mandamus to be issued to the opposite party no. 2 to enter the name of the petitioner in place of his predecessor-in-interest as allottee of the said Flat and to take balance of the sale consideration from the petitioner and execute a sale deed in his favour and not to allot/settle/sell the said Flat in favour of any other person and not to disturb the possession of the petitioner over the said Flat.
2. The brief facts of the case as mentioned in writ petition are that one Sri Ram Pyare Panika, Ex-Member of Parliament had applied for allotment of a three bedroom Flat, type “Rupayan”, in a residential colony called Nehru Enclave in Gomti Nagar developed by the opposite party no. 2, the Lucknow Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘the L.D.A.’) and deposited Rs.30,000/-initially on 28.03.1989. He was allotted Flat no. 152, “Rupayan” on Ist floor at an estimated cost of Rs.4,25,000/-payable in quarterly installments of Rs.17,500/-. Sri Ram Pyare Panika deposited some installments thereafter. By a letter dated 28.07.1994, he was informed that the price of the Flat had increased to Rs.6,42,000/-until the said date, the amount deposited by him came to Rs.3,31,250/-. Later on a Hire Purchase Agreement was entered into between the L.D.A. and Sri Ram Pyare Panika on 15.09.1994 requiring him to deposit Rs.3,70,200/-, additionally, in quarterly installments of Rs.18,500/-. Suddenly, a dispute arose between L.D.A. and the Army, which claimed that Nehru Enclave was built upon land, which belonged to the Army. Army personnel occupied all vacant Flats of the said scheme, in 1999 and Sri Ram Pyare Panika decided to withdraw from the said scheme and wrote to L.D.A. to refund the amount deposited by him.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that allotment of Sri Ram Pyare Panika was never cancelled and the amount deposited by Sri Ram Pyare Panika could not be refunded to him as a dispute arose between UCO Bank and the L.D.A. as to the amount deposited by Sri Ram Pyare Panika. UCO Bank informed the L.D.A. that it had no record regarding payments made by Sri Ram Pyare Panika and recommended that the claim of Sri Ram Pyare Panika be settled on the basis of original challans submitted by him. The petitioner was at the time living with and taking care of Sri Ram Pyare Panika. Since Sri Ram Pyare Panika no longer wanted the said Flat, on account of litigation between L.D.A. and, he on receipt of Rs.5,00,000/-from the petitioner, executed a duly notarized agreement to sell on 01.06.1999, in favour of the petitioner to sell the Flat in question. As the sale deed was not executed by L.D.A. in favour of Sri Ram Pyare Panika, he also executed a notarized Will on the same day that is on 01.06.1999 in favour of the petitioner. Sri Ram Pyare Panika died on 24.10.1999, and he could not deposit the rest of the installments towards the Flat in question. The petitioner who is in possession of the Flat has been repeatedly representing to the L.D.A. to transfer the allotment of the said Flat in his favour and to realise the balance of the sale consideration and register the sale deed in his favour, but the L.D.A. has been threatening him that he shall be evicted forcibly from the Flat in question.
4. It has been alleged by the petitioner that he was served a notice on 27.06.2023 and again on 25.09.2023, with regard to certain dispute relating to the Flat in question raised by a neighbour, and the L.D.A. recognized and acknowledged his possession over the property yet it is not executing a sale deed in his favour. On the other hand, the money deposited by Sri Ram Pyare Panika has illega
AI
A property allotment can be relinquished through a formal request for exchange or refund, extinguishing any rights of the original allottee, and unregistered documents do not confer legal title or in....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disputes involving property rights and substantial reliefs must be adjudicated in a civil court based on evidence, and the special remedy unde....
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 revocation of power of attorney must be communicated to the agent and third parties to be effective; failure to do so renders subsequent transactions valid.
The principles of natural justice require that an allotment cannot be cancelled without due process, including notice and an opportunity to be heard.
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
