Back
MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, PRASHANT KUMAR
Maa Luxmi Housing and Health Welfare Trust – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Vikrant Rana, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Pankaj Rai and Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri J.N. Maurya, learned counsel for the Meerut Development Authority.
2. While entertaining Writ C No.26005 of 2024 on 08.08.2024, it was pressed by learned Senior Counsel that as the petitioners had instituted the earlier Writ C No.21518 of 2021 against the order dated 18.12.2020 passed by State Government under Section 41(3) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973[Act 19] and the same is pending before the learned Single Judge, in the interest of justice both the matters are to be heard together.
3. Accordingly, the matter was placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice and by an administrative order dated 14.08.2024 passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, both the matters were placed before this Court for adjudication.
4. As both the writ petitions are arising out of the same issue, hence, with the consent of parties, both the petitions are tagged and heard together.
5. The first W
A party cannot benefit from its own default; the court upheld the cancellation of allotment due to non-payment of dues.
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 principles of natural justice require that an allotment cannot be cancelled without due process, including notice and an opportunity to be heard.
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....
Authority must provide preferential land allotment to disabled persons per applicable legislation; arbitrary cancellations and excessive interests are unjust.
The court emphasized that the failure to communicate a stay order rendered the DDA's actions arbitrary, upholding the petitioner's continuous readiness and willingness to complete the contract.
A review petition cannot be treated as an appeal; it is limited to specific grounds such as new evidence or apparent errors, and prior cancellation of registration extinguishes any claim to allotment....
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
