Back
BRIJ RAJ SINGH, SANGEETA CHANDRA
Akhilesh Behari Srivastava – Appellant
Versus
Lucknow Development Authority Thr. Its V. C. Lko. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Brij Raj Singh, J.)
1. Heard Sri J.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for opposite parties no.1, 2 and 3, Sri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for opposite party no.5 and Sri Shishir Pradhan, who appears for Smt. Shraddha Singh, who was allowed to intervene in the matter by this Court vide order dated 21.01.2016.
Prayers:-
2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayers:-
(ii) Issue a further Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the re-allotment of the plot in question B-1/214 Viram Khand. Gomti Nagar Scheme, Lucknow, in favour of opposite party no.4 made by opposite parties nos.
The principles of natural justice require that an allotment cannot be cancelled without due process, including notice and an opportunity to be heard.
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 principle of unjust enrichment and the doctrine of legitimate expectations were central to the court's decision, emphasizing the obligation of the Development Authority to act fairly and reasonab....
Mandatory prior approval from the Assistant Collector is essential for land allotments under Section 122-C of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, making unauthorized claims invalid.
Authority must provide preferential land allotment to disabled persons per applicable legislation; arbitrary cancellations and excessive interests are unjust.
The acceptance of a new allotment at current rates precludes a claim for the original premium based on alleged non-receipt of a demand letter.
1. Interest will be calculated after the period of assured possession has elapsed – from when cause of action has arisen2. Arbitration is not a bar to consumer complaint
The cancellation of allotment was justified due to the petitioner's failure to comply with payment terms, emphasizing the importance of adhering to auction conditions and public interest.
The court reinforced that failure to execute necessary agreements and comply with payment terms nullifies any claims to land allotment rights, even where intentions to pay exist.
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
