Misc. Bench No. - 281 of 1997. Case: Ganesh Prasad and Ors. Vs L.D.A. Lucknow and Ors.. High Court of Gujarat (India)
| Case Number | Misc. Bench No. - 281 of 1997 |
| Judges | Devi Prasad Singh, J. and Virendra Kumar Dixit, J. |
| Issue | Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 11, 11A, 16, 17(1), 48, 48(1) and 52(1); Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 - Section 29; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 52; Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 - Sections 4, 4(1), 4(3), 4(7), 5, 6, 7, 16, 18, 41, 41(2), 41(3), 51 and 59; United Provinces Town ... |
| Judgement Date | October 21, 2011 |
| Court | High Court of Gujarat (India) |
Judgment:
Devi Prasad Singh, J., (Lucknow Bench)
1. The controversy involved in the present writ petition, is an instance revealing the blatant abuse of power by the State Government and the Development Authorities (in the present case, the Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow in short the LDA), depriving the Petitioners of plots which were lawfully allotted to them through lottery system and that too, when the entire cost of the plots was deposited by the Petitioners in terms of the schedule prescribed by the LDA. In spite of the fact that the Petitioners deposited cost of the plots as far back as in the year 1984, they failed to enjoy the sweet dreams of having their own house in the city of Lucknow in view of the multiplicity of litigation in the hands of red tapism and abuse of power for extraneous reasons and consideration by the LDA and the State Government. The Writ Petition No. 281 (M/B) of 1997 is taken up as leading writ petition for the purpose of present controversy.
2. The Petitioner No. 1, 2 and 3 are the allottees of Plot No. 6-E, 2-3 and 130-E in Aliganj Housing Scheme, Lucknow (in short the Scheme). They have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the grievance that though, the entire cost of plot was deposited by the Petitioners in the year 1984, 1987 and 1984 respectively but neither sale-deed has been executed nor the possession has been delivered. The facts giving rise to the present controversy are discussed hereinbelow:
FACTS
3. Khasra Plot No. 71 and 72 of village Tatarpur and some other plots of village Shekhapur were acquired by the State Government vide Notification dated 17.3.1962 under Section 357 of U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, followed by Notification dated 26.4.1969 under Section 363 (1) of U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam. The possession of the land acquired was taken over and delivered to the Lucknow Development Authority (in short LDA) by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, between 15.9.1978 to 4.5.1981 except Khasra Plot No. 71 and 72 of village Tatarpur and Plot No. 294 of village Shekhapur. The Award was also made by the Land Acquisition Officer with regard to other plots of village Shekhapur, on 31.12.1979. So far as the Plot No. 71 and 72 of village Tatarpur is concerned, the Award was made by the Land Acquisition Officer on 31.12.1979. Thus, the acquisition process was completed by 31.12.1979.
4. In spite of Award dated 31.12.1979, the original tenure holders of the land executed sale-deed, transferring the land in favour of Respondent Society on 15.1.1981, though acquisition process completed earlier to it.
5. In the year 1984, the Respondent No. 1 i.e., LDA, had invited applications through advertisement for sale of plots under the Scheme. The plot No. 6-E, 2-E and 130-E was allotted to the Petitioners by the LDA. Admittedly, entire cost of the plots was deposited by the Petitioners in prescribed time with the LDA. The cost was deposited in pursuance of the allotment letter dated 23.6.1984, the copies of which have been filed as Annexure No. 1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition. The receipts with regard to deposition of cost of plots, have been filed as Annexure No. 4, 5 and 6 to the writ petition.
6. In the meantime, it appears that on pursuance of Respondent society land in question and some other plots were released by the State Government by an order dated 15.6.1984 but never notified.
7. In spite of the fact that the Petitioners have deposited entire cost of the plots, they were neither given possession nor LDA has executed the sale-deed. Repeated representations submitted by the Petitioners remained unattended, the last one of which is dated 11.6.1996 a copy of which, has been filed as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition. On account of inaction on the part of the Respondent LDA with regard to delivery of possession of the plots and execution of sale-deed, the Petitioners have approached this Court installing their claim with regard to plot No. 6-E, 2-E and 13-E respectively which were allotted to them by the allotment letters filed as Annexure No. 1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition.
8. While filing the counter affidavit the LDA has stated that the release of land by the Government, vide order dated 15.6.1984 was in violation of Section 48 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act because of the fact that the possession of the land was already taken over by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Award in respect of the same was made under Section 11 of the Act. The LDA wrote letter to the State Government raising objection with regard to Government order dated 5.6.1984. The Government had considered the objection raised by the LDA and by subsequent decision the release of land in favour of Respondent society was cancelled, vide Government order dated 2.5.1986 a copy of which has been filed as CA-2 to the counter affidavit filed by the LDA.
9. According to para-10 of the counter affidavit filed by the LDA, the State Government was also informed that layout plan submitted by the Society, cannot be sanctioned since the area covered therein, falls within the domain of the Scheme. The LDA has also informed the Respondent Society pointing out the illegality in the layout plan. A copy of the letter dated 23.11.1976 and 4.12.1980 sent by the LDA and the Society has been filed as Annexure No. CA-3 and CA-4 to the counter affidavit.
10. The State Government issued an order dated 26.11.1992 providing therein that the dispute between the registered cooperative housing societies and the development authorities of Uttar Pradesh, should be resolved by way of settlement/compromise at Allahabad, Lucknow on reasonable terms and conditions. It appears that the State Government took the decision in view of litigation pending in the High Court with regard to a cooperative housing society namely, Amrapali Sahkari Avas Samiti Limited.
11. The LDA under the garb of Government order dated 26.11.1992, convened a meeting on 27.10.1994 presided by the Secretary of LDA,and the office bearers of the society to resolve the dispute and took a decision that LDA shall adjust its registered sale-deed holders and members of the society holding registered sale-deed by adjusting them and permitting them to retain the possession of respective plots with regard to which the society has executed registered sale-deed after depositing the entire development cost of plots. The decision taken by the Secretary along with the society was alleged to be approved by the Vice-Chairman of LDA at latter stage.
However, there is nothing on record which may reveal that land/plots with regard to a decision so taken on 27.10.1994, the acquisition was denotified or the matter was approved by the Board of LDA. In the meantime, the Respondent society with intention to avail the benefit of Government order dated 25.6.1984, filed Writ Petition No. 4257 (M/B) of 1984 in which interim order was passed on 23.8.1984 followed by 25.8.1988 by a Division Bench of this Court directing to maintain status quo.
12. During the pendency of aforesaid writ petition, the LDA and the society through its President Sri B.S. Dahiya, entered into agreement on 28.10.1996. The agreement was entered between the LDA and society through its President Sri B.S. Dahiya under the garb of alleged settlement dated 27.10.1994 (supra). Under the said agreement dated 28.10.1996, the society was offered 24 plots of different size in Sector-E of Aliganj, Housing Scheme and 8 plots in Sector-J, Sitapur Road Housing Scheme, total area of land measuring 5684.50 sq. metres subject to payment of development cost of the year 1983-84 along with interest at the rate of 16% whereby an amount of Rs. 22,43,770/- that too, in four quarterly instalments. This agreement includes Petitioners plot in question.
It shall be relevant to mention here that the LDA entered into agreement without placing the matter to the Board and also without taking note of the Government order dated 2.5.1986 by which, earlier order dated 15.6.1981 was cancelled by the State Government with regard to release of land in favour of the society that too, on the objections raised by the LDA itself and on finding the substantial illegality in the decision taken by the State Government.
13. After the aforesaid agreement on the request made by the society, the Writ Petition No. 4257 (M/B) of 1984 was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.1.1997. In the Writ Petition No. 4257 (M/B) of 1984 which was withdrawn by the society, the notification with regard to acquisition of land as well as the Government order dated 2.5.1986 was impugned.
14. After agreement, the LDA offered the Petitioners to accept other plots but the Petitioner No. 1 has not acceded to such request. On the other hand, the Petitioner No. 2 and 3 were allotted Another plot. C-3/1, in Vikrant Khand, Gomti Nagar in lieu of Plot No. C-2 situate in Sector-E, Aliganj Housing Scheme, Lucknow and executed the sale-deed in favour of the Petitioner No. 2 Ramesh Chandra Agarwal on 18.3.2003. Plot No. 390, Vikrant Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow was allotted to the Petitioner No. 3 in lieu of Plot No. 130-E, Aliganj Housing Scheme, Lucknow.
15. It has been vehemently submitted by Sri J.K. Sinha, later on Sri H.S. Jain, Learned Counsels for the Petitioner that Plot No. 6-E, measuring 1800 sq. ft., was allotted to the Petitioner on 30.5.1984 in the Scheme through lottery held on 30.5.1984 and he was required to deposit Rs. 27,000/- which he deposited on 31.8.1984 in the Account of the LDA, situated in United Commercial Bank, Hazratganj, Lucknow. The Petitioner also deposited an amount of Rs. 36,000/- as full and final payment of cost of plot in question.
On the other hand, area of the plot of which Society has executed sale-deed in favour of intervener is 3200 sq. ft.
16. While assailing the impugned agreement, it has been submitted by the Petitioner's counsel Sri J.K. Sinha that Sri B.S. Dahiya was no more Administrator...
To continue reading
Request your trial