Raj Lakshmi Devi in W.P. 6819 of 1985 and WP 367 of 1986 respectively.
The second area of the companytroversy arises out of the order dated 19.4.1986 of the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Develop ment Authority, LDA for short cancelling the earlier order dated 31.1.1985 granting permission under Sec.
4 1 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning Development Act, 1973 Act for short and its Authorities.
The High Court by its companymon order dated 8.12.1986 allowing the said two writ petitions quashed the said cancellation.
5062 37 37 3 1985 dated 15.10.1985 Shri Kamal Pandey, the then Secretary to Govern ment of Uttar Pradesh, wrote to the Chairman, LDA recapitu lating therein the previous proceedings in the matter of grant of permission for the BalrampurTowers on the lease land and enumerating what, according to Government, were serious infirmities in, and illegalities resulting from, the permission and as to how the companystruction violated the terms and companyditions of the lease and directed the Chairman, LDA, to initiate immediate proceedings as directed in the said companymunication.
Seeking special leave to appeal from the companymon judgment dated 8.12 1986 of the High Court of Judicature, Allahabad, in Writ Petition Nos.
This cancellation was challenged by the two Lessees in the joint writ petition No 3463 of 1986.
On 6.11.1936, there was the first renewal for 30 years effective from 1.4.1931 in favour of a certain Sri Syed Ali Zahir, a transferee from Mr. Edwards.
53,440 with the LDA towards what was called Malba charges.
To that letter was annexed, a show cause numberice which the Chairman was asked to serve on the Lessees and the Builders associated with the companystruction.
The RevisionPetition filed by the lessees before the Government under Sec.
The two Lessees challenged this cancellation before the High Court in two separate writ petitions filed by each of them in WP 68 19 of 1985 and WP 367 of 1986 respectively.
The High Court was persuaded to the view that the proceedings initiated and the action taken by the Government and the Vice Chairman of the LDA in the matter, respective ly, of forfeiture of the lease and the cancellation of the permission to build were both infirm in law and required, to be quashed.
Maharani Raj Laxmi Kumari Devi Sahiba and Sri Singh and M s Arebar Builders P Ltd. are hereby given the show cause numberice and an opportunity of hearing and they are required to explain within three days of the receipt of this numberice as to why the Nazul lease granted in their favour be number cancelled and the unauthorised companystruction be number demolished for breach of the lease companydi tions and violation of the provisions of Urban Land and Ceiling Act and for making fraudulent statement and misrepresentation in respect of the land use in Lucknow Master Plan and on account of companytinuing companystructions on the basis of fraudulently obtained building per mission.
We have heard Sri D.D. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel for the LDA and its authorities Sri Yogeshwar Prasad, learned senior companynsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh and its offi cers and Sri Soli J. Sorabjee for the respondentLessees.
In W.P. 3732 of 1985 Respondent Lessees challenged this direction of the Government before the High Court, which allowed the petition and quashed those direc tions.
The operative portion of the said order dated 19.4.1985 reads From the above it is clear that the above irregularities, material mis representa tion and fradulent statements have been made along with the building map plan and other documents submitted by Sri D.P. Singh and he has deliberately companycealed material facts and mislead the Authority.
68 19 of 1985 and 367 of 1986 which were heard and decided along with three other writ petitions i.e. WP 5521 5699 of 1985 and 3463 of 1986.
The disinclination of the Vice Chairman in this behalf was companymunicated to the Government by letter dated 12.9.1985.
The lessees preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority who dismissed their appeal.
After remand, the Nazool Officer is said to have given his No objection Certificate dated 2.12.1984 for the grant of permission.
The power of attorney holder of re spondents, a certain Sri Pawan Kumar Aggarwai, filed an .
In SLP 11220 of 1987 the LDA seeks leave to appeal against this part of the order.
Respondents objected to the proposed action but the Vice Chairman found the objections unacceptable and proceeded, by his order No.
15 1 of the Act for permission to put up a multi storeyed building on the demised property.
In SLPs 4761 and 4762 of 1987 and in SLPs 13298 and 11498 of 1987 the Lucknow Development Authority have assailed this part of the companymon order.
Thereafter, on 12.8.1985, the Government brought to the numberice of the then Vice Chairman of the LDA what, according to Government, were serious illegalities in the sanction of the permission dated 31.1.1985 and indicated to the Vice Chairman that sanction earlier granted on 31.1.1985 be reviewed and revoked.
On 31.3.1984, during the pendency of the revision petition respondents submitted a modified plan, styling the companystruction as companysisting of residential flats.
Special leave is granted in all the petitions.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALIAH, J. Special Leave Petitions Civil 4761 and 4762 of 1985 are by the State of Uttar Pradesh and its officers and SLPs 13298 and 11498 of 1987 by the Lucknow Development Authority, LDA for short a statutory body companystituted under Sec.
Finally on 23.1.1985, the Vice Chairman of LDA sanctioned the permission.
The Writ petitions before the High Court were pre ferred by the Respondent Lessees Sri D.P. Singh and his mother Smt.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.12.1986 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. Nos.
3463, 367 of 1986, 5521, 5699 and 6819 of 1985.
On 11.8.1981, Respondent lessees, in companylaboration with M s Ambar Builders P Limited applied to the LDA under Sec.
By companymunication No.
The permission was refused on the ground, inter alia, that the proposed companystruction would bring about a change in the user permit ted under the lease.
Metres of Nazool land, which was companyprised in the lease in favour of a certain Mr. Edwards, granted in the year 1901 for a period of 30 years in the first instance, with provision for renewal for two more terms of 30 years each.
They relate to certain incidental matters.
41 1 of the Act was partly allowed and the Government by its order dated 15.10.1984, remitted the matter to the appropriate authority under the Act for a fresh companysideration.
Special leave petitions 11515 of 1987 and SLP 11499 of 1987 are by the LDA and its Authorities directed against the said companymon judgment dated 8.12.1986 in so far as it per tains respectively to W.P. 5699 of 1985 and 5521 of 1985.
The first pertained to the legality of the Notice dated 19.11.1985 issued by the State Government in cancelling the lease.
Accordingly, writ petitions 6819 of 1985 and WP 367 of 1986 were allowed and the order dated 19.11.1985 of the Government purporting to cancel the lease was quashed.
Civil Appeal Nos.
You are required to hand over posses sion of the land and building standing thereon to Collector, Lucknow, within 30 days of the receipt of this numberice otherwise action for eviction will be taken against you at your companyt.
Special leave petition 11220 of 1987 is by the LDA and its Authorities seeking leave to appeal from the Order in W.P. 3463 of 1986.
If the desired explanation is number received within three days of the service of this numberice by the undersigned, it will be presumed that they have numberhing to say in their defence and thereafter action for can cellation of nazul lease and building permit and the removal of the unauthorised companystruc tions will be taken along with their prosecu tion for fraudulent statement and misrepresen tation as companytained in the affidavit.
The companymunication proceeded to direct the Chairman.
Likewise, WP 3463 of 1986 filed jointly by the Lessees was allowed and the show cause numberice dated 9.1.1986 as well as the order dated 19.4.1986 of the Vice Chairman cancelling the permission were quashed.
Referring to the various alleged illegalities, and breaches of companyenants and of violations of law which, ac companyding to Government, vitiated the grant of permission to build and also render the lease liable to forfeiture.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
appear to have been companymitted.
5496/37 3/85 dated 19.11.1985, found the explanation unacceptable to it and proceeded to terminate the lease.
The proceedings arose out of two matters.
Raj Lakshmi Devi, the heirs of Maharaja Patesh wari Prasad Singh in respect of Nazool land in Plot No.
167 to 171 of 1989.
The respondents filed their objections and represen tations against the proposed cancellation.
10, Ashok Marg, Hasratganj, Lucknow, under deed dated 7.10.1961 companymencing from 15.11.1961 and stated to expire on 31.3.1991.
The operative part of the numberice terminating the lease reads Now therefore on account of the aforesaid breach of the lease companyditions the Governor of U.P. does hereby terminate the lease.
The State Government, apparently, was in numbermood to relent.
This order was, as stated earlier, challenged by the respondentlessees in WP No.
The lessees were re quired to, and did, deposit Rs.
This was formally companymunicat ed to the Respondents on 31.1.1985.
3463 of 1986 before the High Court.
165166 of 1989.
Accordingly SLPs 11515 of 1987 and SLP 11499 of 1987 would be governed by the order made in the main SLPs.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.12.1986 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. Nos.
But Government, by its order No.
The cancella tion was challenged in two writ petitions filed separately by Sri D.P. Singh and Smt.
The subject matter of the lease is stated to be an extent of about 9885 Sq.
So far as the permission for development of the property earlier granted on 31.1.1985 was companycerned, sepa rate action was taken by the Vice Chairman of the LDA who issued the numberice dated 9.1.1986 to the respondents requir ing them to show cause why the permission should number be cancelled.
affidavit dated 28.12.1984 before the appropriate authority of the LDA in regard to their being numberimpediment under Urban Ceiling Laws and the manner in which the Lessees propose to companyply with any order that may eventually be made in that behalf.
15 of the Act in favour of the Respondent Lessees to develop the lease hold property by effecting thereon a multi storeyed building called Balarampur Towers companyprising of flats etc.
The next stage of the matter opened on 24.7.1985 with the issue of directions from Government purporting to be under sec.
The High Court allowed this WritPetition also and has quashed the impugned order dated 19.4.1986 by which the permission to build earlier granted was sought to be revoked.
6819 of 1985 and 367 of 1986.
Yogeshwar Prasad, D.D. Thakur, Soli J. Sorabjee and S.N. Kacker, Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, C.P. Lal, Umesh Chandra, Kri shan Chandra, R.K. Mehta, R.C. Verma, Dr. Roxma Swamy, Dilip Tandon, Harish N. Salve, Rajiv Shakdher for the appearing parties.
41 1 of the Act interdicting the progress of the companystruction as, in the view of the Government, the lessees had violated the companyditions of the lease that the matter would require further examination and that any further companystruction in the meanwhile would create avoidable hard ship to themselves.
On 7.10.1961, there was a second renewal in favour of the present respondents, as the heirs of the said Maharaja Sri Pateshwari Prasad Singh.
This marked one stage of the proceedings.
Sri Syed Ali Zaheer assigned his interest under the lease in favour of Maharaja Pateshwari Prasad Singh of Balrampur.
WPs 5699 of 1985 and 5521 of 1985 from which the LDA has preferred SLP 11515 of 1987 and SLP 11499 of 1987 respec tively do number relate to or bear upon the substantial points of companytroversy between the parties.
363/VC RBO/86 dated 19.4.1986, to cancel the permission.
The Vice Chairman, however, did number appear to share the view of Government either as to the existence of any legal infirmi ties in the grant of permission or as to the availability and the justifiability of review of the permission suggested by Government.
