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.

JUDGMENT :

Hon’ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.

1. Heard Sri B.K. Singh Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh Advocate, the learned State Counsel, and perused the record.

2. By means of the Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of an order dated 13.04.2010 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Joint Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority (L.D.A), whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove her possession over plot number 3/85, Vishwas Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, failing which the L.D.A will remove the encroachment made by the petitioner on the aforesaid plot. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, commanding the opposite parties not to interfere in possession of the petitioner in respect of Plot No. 3/85, Vishwas Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.

Order on Amendment Application

3. On 08.08.2023, the petitioner has filed an application for amendment of the Writ Petition seeking to add a prayer for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the L.D.A to allot an additional land area of 180 square meters to the petitioner in pursuance of a Government Order dated 05.03.1996 read with a Government Order dated 20.04.1998. An application dated 22.03.2023 submitted by the petitioner, to the Vice Chairman L.D.A has been annexed with the affidavit in support of the amendment application, wherein she stated that the Government Order dated 05.03.1996 provides that if standard plots could not be carved out, the allottee of adjacent land will be given the land. She stated that all the plots situated in the row, where the petitioner’s house is situated, measure 300 Square meters, whereas the land in question (Plot No. 3/85) measures less than 300 Square meters and it is merely 180 Square meters additional land.

4. A copy of a Government Order dated 05.03.1996 has been annexed with the affidavit filed in support of the amendment application and it provides that as far as possible, in case the additional land can be used as a new plot, it should be allotted as a new plot. Where it is not possible to create a new plot as per the layout plan, the land should be offered to the allottees of both the adjacent plots or to allottee of one adjacent plot, whichever is practical.

5. The petitioner has also annexed a copy of a Government Order dated 20.04.1998, which inter alia provides that in case any allottee wants to purchase an additional land, he will be charged price at the current rate, but where the development authority itself offers additional land to the transferee, price thereof shall be taken at the rate prevalent at the time of original allotment along with simple interest.

6. In the written arguments filed after closure of the submissions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. versus Bhailal Bhai, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 10, in which it has been held that: -

“14…The jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 is in very wide terms. This article empowers the High Court to give relief by way of enforcement of fundamental rights and other rights by issuing directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari. According to the petitioners a writ in the nature of mandamus can be appropriately used where money has been paid to the Government by mistake to give relief by commanding repayment of the same. That in a number of cases the High Courts have used the writ of mandamus to enforce such repayment is not disputed. …

15. We see no reason to think that the High Courts have not got this power. If a right has been infringed — whether a fundamental right or a statutory right — and the aggrieved party comes to the court for enforcement of the right it will not be giving complete relief if the court merely declares the existence of such right or the fact that that existi