Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Vinod Diwakar
Savita Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State respondent and Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned counsel for U.P. State Industrial Development Authority,[In short "UPSIDA" (earlier known as "UPSIDC”).]
2. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 24.05.2024, whereby the petitioner’s lease has been cancelled, and to set aside the subsequent order dated 12.08.2024, by which the petitioner’s review application dated 03.07.2024, seeking restoration of the allotment, has been rejected. The petitioner further seeks to cancel the scheduled e-auction of the plot in question and prays for a direction to the respondent authorities restraining them from dispossessing the petitioner from Plot No. E-236, ad- measuring 767.32 square meters, situated at Industrial Area Karkhiyaon, Phoolpur, Varanasi.
3. The petitioner was duly allotted the plot in question for the purpose of establishing industrial activities, in accordance with the policies and procedures prescribed by the concerned authorities. Respondent No. 2 – Uttar Prad
Repeated non-compliance with lease obligations justifies cancellation, prioritizing public interest and fiscal discipline over personal hardships.
(1) Land allotment authorities possess inherent right to cancel allotments upon violation of stipulated conditions – Judicial intervention in matters concerning land revocation should be circumscribe....
Failure to comply with lease conditions justifies cancellation of the lease, emphasizing the necessity for timely establishment of operations by allottees under industrial development regulations.
Failure to utilize allocated industrial land justifies its cancellation under statutory provisions.
The authority's decision to reclaim public property for consistent breaches by the allottee, despite several opportunities to comply, confirms that equitable considerations cannot override legal obli....
No party can benefit from its own wrong; UPSIDA cannot charge interest for delays caused by its own actions.
The court ruled that allotment cancellation for non-payment is valid without prior notice, as applicable law requires notice only post-lease execution, which was not applicable here.
The cancellation of land leases after a significant delay violates statutory provisions and principles of reasonable time, affirming the rights of long-term lessees under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition....
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
