IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that prior illegal actions by government officials cannot affect the rights of third parties who acted in good faith under valid agreements.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Nikhil Agrawal learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra learned Advocate General and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava and Sri Bharat Pratap Singh learned Additional Chief Standing Counsels for the State respondents and Sri Nipun Singh learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Avas Evam Vikas Parishad.

2. The present petition is directed against the order dated 21.6.2022 passed by the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., insofar as it relates to the conclusion drawn in the Condition Nos. (ii) and (iii) of the order impugned. The consequential letter dated 15.9.2022 issued by the Manager Property, on behalf of the Commissioner (Housing), U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Ghaziabad is subject-matter of challenge in the connected Writ-C No. 29931 of 2022 (M/s. Gaursons India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Others).

3. The brief facts of the case relevant to address the controversy before us are:

On a Writ Petition No. 19311 of 2020 (M/s. Gaursons India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Others) filed by the petitioner herein, pursuant to the judgment and order dated 16.12.2020 passed therein, the order impugned has been passed by the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P.

4. From a reading of the order impugned, it transpires that certain plots belonging to M/s. Mohan Meakins Ltd. and M/s. National Cereals Products Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenure holder firms') for a total area of 19-5-10 Bigha (12.047 acres), were acquired for the scheme namely Vasundhara Yojna, Ghaziabad by U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad under Sections 28 and 32 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965. A Writ Petition No. 17372 of 1987 was filed by the tenure holders to challenge the acquisition. The acquisition notifications were quashed by the judgment and order dated 18.3.1993 passed by this Court. In SLP No. 22015 of 1994, a compromise had been arrived between the parties and an order dated 20.3.1995 was passed by the Apex Court incorporating the terms of the compromise. In compliance whereof, the exchange deed dated 24.9.2004 was executed between Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and the tenure holder firms. In clause (4) of the said exchange deed, a condition was put that the land adjusted under exchange would be utilized by the tenure holder firms for construction of water purification plant and related purposes, whereas the remaining land would be kept vacant. It is undisputed that the said exchange deed was executed between the tenure holder firms and Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, in lieu of acquisition of 12.047 acres of the land of the tenure holders by Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, which was quashed by the High Court. It may be noted that the Apex Court did not enter into the merits of the judgment under challenge because of the compromise.

5. The lands given in the aforesaid exchange deed were sold by the tenure holder firms in favour of the petitioner herein namely M/s. Gaursons India Pvt. Ltd. vide sale-deed dated 1.8.2005.

6. A dispute arose in the year 2005 with regard to allotment of Khasra No. 958 and 1454 to the tenure holder firms under the exchange deed dated 24.9.2004. It has come into light that the said plots were resumed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad by order dated 21.3.1994 for Hinden Bird Sanctuary.

7. It may be noted, at this juncture, that the nature of Khasra No. 948 as shown in the revenue records was 'Lake' whereas Khasra No. 1454 was a 'Banjar' land. The revision filed by Avas Evam Vikas Parishad against the resumption order of the District Magistrate dated 21.3.1994 was dismissed by the Commissioner, Meerut vide order dated 30.3.2009.

8. In the meantime, a writ petition was filed by the petitioner herein namely Writ Petition No. 31871 of 2006, with the relief to issue direction to the Avas Vikas Parishad to provide alternative land. By the interim order dated 13.6.2006, the Parishad was directed to decide the representation filed by the petitioner