Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PRAKASH PADIA
Vision Town Planners Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRAKASH PADIA, J.
1. Heard Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kartikey Saran, learned Additional Advocate General State of U.P. along with Sri Vijay Shankar Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri Vineet Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 at length.
2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the following prayers:-
i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the respondent no. 1 to the extent it refuses to set aside the demand of Rs. 168.37-Crores towards arrears of annual lease rent as well as Rs. 7.38-Crores towards CIC charges (Annexure No. 1);
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the respondent authority to forthwith restore the plot of the petitioner without demanding restoration charges in accordance with GO dated 05.11.2019.
iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the respondent authority to charge annual lease rent only from the date of
Development authorities must adhere to mandatory conditions regarding possession certificates; failure to comply invalidates lease rent claims and CIC charges deemed illegal must be refunded.
Authority must deliver physical possession of land to the allottee; failure to do so grants the right to zero period benefits under lease agreements.
Actual physical possession must be established for lease obligations; mere issuance of possession certificate is insufficient.
The cancellation of a lease due to shareholding changes is unjustified when actual possession of leased land has not been delivered, invalidating claims for rents and penalties.
The lessee is not obligated to pay premium and interest until actual physical possession of the leased land is delivered to them, emphasizing the authority's duty to provide possession first.
A party cannot be denied benefits due to issues beyond their control; zero period benefits were affirmed due to delays stemming from governmental actions.
Changes in shareholding do not constitute a transfer of property under a perpetual lease, and unearned increase cannot be charged based solely on share transfers.
Lease Agreement - Demand of misuse charges illegal arbitrary - As per this policy the maximum period for levying misuse charges is restricted to five years from the date of detection of the misuse.
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
