HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
SANGEETA CHANDRA, BRIJ RAJ SINGH
Rakesh Kumar Shukla – Appellant
Versus
Lucknow Development Authority Thru. its Chairman , Lko. – Respondent
Key Points: - The judgment emphasizes that prior approval of the Assistant Collector is mandatory for housing site allotments under Section 122-C, and allotments without this approval are void. (!) (!) (!) - It holds that misrepresentation or concealment amounts to fraud and can lead to dismissal of petitions and nullification of orders obtained through such means. (!) (!) (!) - It sets out the statutory framework including Section 122-C, Rules 115-L, 115-N, 115-O, and Manual Para 49, detailing lists (Form 49-D, 49-E, Form 49-F), public announcements, drawing of lots, and area limits (250 sqm). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - It notes that the 1975 Rule amendments harmonized with the substantive provision, reaffirming the supremacy of the 1971 amendment establishing prior approval. (!) (!) (!) - The case analyzes specific encumbrances and survey findings showing land fell on Khasra 55, not 88, affecting legitimacy of alleged patta and allotment. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The decision ultimately dismisses the writ petition, upholding that patta/claims lacking valid statutory basis and evidence are not enforceable. (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges allotment and legality. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 3. examination and review of pleadings. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 4. procedural requirements for allotment. (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68) |
| 5. governing principles detailed for allotments. (Para 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79) |
| 6. fraud implications in judicial proceedings. (Para 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85) |
| 7. conclusion regarding the dismissal of the petition. (Para 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90) |
Judgment :
Sangeeta Chandra,J.
This judgment has been divided into the following Sections tofacilitate analysis:
| A. | The Challenge | Para 1 |
| B. | Rival Submissions | Para 2 to 31 |
| C. | Examination of pleadings by the Court | Para 32 to 68 |
| D. | Statutory Provisions | Para 69 to 74 |
| E. | Governing Principles | Para 75 |
| F. | Analysis of Petitioner’s Claim | Para 76 – 78 |
| G. | Case laws on the Subject | Para 79 |
| H. | Fraud through Misrepresentation and Co | |



Amar Singh v. Ranpal Singh and Others
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu(Dead) by LRs Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs and Others,
K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others:
G. Jayshree and others v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and others
Dalip Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others
Moti Lal Songara versus Prem Prakash Alias Pappu and another
State of Orissa versus Laxmi Narayan Das (Dead) Through LRs & Others
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.
The exercise of statutory authority must be within a reasonable period, and fraud vitiates all proceedings.
The court emphasized the necessity of transparency and adherence to established procedures in public land allotments to uphold constitutional rights.
The principles of natural justice require that an allotment cannot be cancelled without due process, including notice and an opportunity to be heard.
The court established that residents can challenge land allotments as 'persons aggrieved' under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, emphasizing the importance of public interest in suc....
The Divisional Commissioner had the power to examine and cancel the transfer of land, and the petitioner-Society had no legal right to claim allotment of land based on the Trust's decision.
The failure to establish lawful possession and the invalidity of the allotment order led to the dismissal of the appeal, emphasizing jurisdictional limits in civil suits regarding land allotments.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.