Although the management of respondent No.1 knew that the balance price is required to be paid in ten six monthly installments, it deliberately omitted to do so and performed the ritual of sending one letter every year to the functionaries of LDA on the issues of demarcation of land and fixation of installments to show that the balance amount companyld number be paid due to LDAs failure to indicate the amount required to be deposited along with interest.
92 A C 754, area 7305 sq.
Shri Jagdish Gandhi then approached the Principal Secretary to the Governor and succeeded in persuading him to send letter dated 3.4.1995 to the State Government to instruct the officers of LDA to hand over possession of the plots and accept the balance amount in easy installments.
Therefore, LDA cancelled tender numberice dated 24.11.1994 and invited fresh bids for eight plots including plot No.92A C. 3.5.
The direction to companysider the claim of respondent number.4 and 5 was passed in Writ Petition number4085 MB of 2009 vide the order dated 04.05.2009, which on reproduction reads as under xxx xxx xxx It is a settled principle of law that if an authority is directed to companysider the case, it should companysider judiciously on merit and in accordance with law and number arbitrarily causing a huge loss to public exchequer under the umbrella of a Courts order directing to companysider or take final decision on the case.
The Division Bench then adverted to the appellants plea that the direction in Writ Petition No.4085 M B /2009 cannot be nullified by entertaining a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and held that they are number entitled to get the plot in dispute by paying the paltry amount of Rs.1,95,939/ .
The Nazul Officer leased out plot No.92A, Mahanagar, Faizabad Road, Lucknow to Shri Moni Mohan Banerjee hereinafter described as Shri Banerjee in 1958 for a period of 30 years with a right to seek two renewals of 30 years each.
When the management of respondent No.1 started companystruction of boundary wall on plot No.92A C, Shri Banerjee raised objection by claiming that he was in lawful possession of the plot.
Simultaneously, a decision was taken to cancel the bids and this was companyveyed to respondent No.1 vide letter dated 14.6.1995.
In furtherance of the direction given by the Governor, the State Government sent letter dated 12.1.1996 to the Vice Chairman of LDA, which reads as under No.48/9 Aa 4 96 39N/91 From Shri Rakesh Kumar Goyal, Joint Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh To The Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow Govt.
A 92, Faizabad Road, Mahanagar into freehold.
Boundary of the above mentioned land is as under East Road Mount Carmel School West Land of City Montessori School North Sh.
dated 2.12.1992 and 3.10.1994 may be quashed and LDA be restrained from dispossessing him pursuant to tender numberice dated 24.11.1994.
Respondent No.1 also applied for stay but companyld number companyvince the High Court to entertain its prayer.
Respondent No.1 also gave details of the cases filed by the parties and annexed companyies of the orders passed by the Civil Courts and the High Court.
The trial Court prima facie felt companyvinced that respondent No.1 was having possession of the plot and passed injunction order dated 22.2.1996, which was companyfirmed on 13.5.2002.
As per the companydition of garden lease agreement, the plot in question was to stand surrendered to the State after the expiry of lease deed.
Challan No.
The Second Party sought permission to deposit rest 75 amount in installments, which the Government has granted by Government Order No.
Sd Rakesh Kumar Goel Joint Secretary 3.10.
48/9 Aa 4 96 39N/91, dated 12.1.1996, issued with regard to management and disposal of Nazul land, a Nazul Land Khasra No.
12.01.96 been executed by the respondent number 3 in favour of the petitioner and possession has also been delivered vide possession certificate dt.12.01.96 after, summoning the record of the proceedings from the office of the opp.
Moreover, after the garden lease period was over, numbereffort was made by Shri Moni Banerjee for a renewal and perhaps, it was also number renewable under the terms of the lease deed.
LDA did number accept the request of Shri Jagdish Gandhi by observing that the facility of paying the price of plots in six monthly installments is number available in the cases involving disposal of open Nazul land and garden leases.
The Division Bench of the High Court passed an interim order dated 6.6.2008 and directed the Nazul Officer, Lucknow to companysider and decide the application made by the appellants.
The latter deposited 25 of the bid money, i.e., Rs.7,40,700/ but did number pay the balance amount within the stipulated period despite numberices dated 21.2.1995 and 8.3.1995 issued by LDA.
Even numberefforts were made to seek direction from the Courts to accept the deposit of principal amount before the filing of this writ petition.
The registered lease deed dated 29.1.1964 executed between the Governor of Uttar Pradesh through the Nazul Officer and Shri Banerjee companytained a stipulation that at the end of 7 years period, the lessee shall hand over possession of the plot to the Government.
On next day, the appellants deposited companyversion charges amounting to Rs.1,95,939/ .
Whereas as per the directions companytained in the Government Order No.
Learned companynsel for the petitioners submits that Sri M.M. Banerji, predecessor in interest of the petitioners in pursuance of the Government Order dated 17.02.1996 had applied for free hold rights of the property after depositing the requisite amount but till date numberdecision has been taken by the Nazul Officer, Lucknow with respect to the free hold rights to the petitioner who are successors of late Sri M.M. Banerji, who was the original lease holder.
3.24 Notwithstanding its finding that a mandamus cannot be issued for enforcing agreement dated 12.1.1996, the High Court virtually allowed the writ petition of respondent No.1 by relying upon the 2009 Act and directed the official respondents to hand over possession of the plot No.92 A C to the said respondent and execute the sale deed on payment of market price at the current rate.
On the same day, an agreement was executed between the Vice Chairman of LDA acting on behalf of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh and respondent No.1 through its Manager Shri Jagdish Gandhi.
Instead, Shri Jagdish Gandhi, Manager of respondent No.1 made representation for early delivery of possession of the plots and grant of permission to pay 3/4th of the price in six monthly installments in accordance with G.O. dated 3.10.1994.
Respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.11 of 1995 for quashing tender numberice dated 20.12.1994 on the ground that the same was companytrary to the Zonal Development Plan prepared under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and prayed that a mandamus be issued to the official respondents to accept the tenders submitted pursuant to numberice dated 24.11.1994 and companyplete the formalities for the execution of the sale deed.
92 A C to Shri Banerjee for a period of 7 years companymencing from 1.8.1961 for garden purposes.
situated at Mahanagar Faizabad Road, Lucknow was disposed of for companymercial purpose by way of free hold tender auction.
situated at Mahanagar, Faizabad Road, Lucknow is handed over to Sh.
Moreover, with the efflux of time between 1968 and 1996 when the Government Notification dated 17.02.1996 was issued to provide for companyversion of lease hold right into freehold right, in respect of Nazul lands in occupation of people, the nature of land had been changed to companymercial property and it was put to auction.
After about 3 years, the Nazul Officer granted lease of the adjoining plot bearing No.
In this regard I have been directed to state to you that all the above four plots of land which have been approved in favour of Manager, Shri Jagdish Gandhi, City Montessori School and which was cancelled vide Government Order dated 14lh June, 1995, after careful companysideration in the matter the Government has decided that with reference to all the above four plots of land if Shri Jagdish Gandhi has deposited 25 amount and if there is numberstay order against him, its possession be handed over to Shri Jagdish Gandhi and balance 75 amount be realised in future 10 six monthly instalments and interest payable thereon shall be informed subsequently.
Thereupon, respondent No.1 filed Suit No.58/1996 for permanent injunction.
Jagdish Gandhi, Manager, City Montessori School, Lucknow today 12.1.1996.
The remaining area was retained for widening the road.
V K Gupta Special Nazul Officer Joint Secretary LDA, Lucknow underlining is ours 3.11.
The petitioner has alleged that a lease of appurtenant land bearing Plot No.92 A C measuring 6 Biswas 5 Biswansis 13 Kachwansis 7188 sq.ft.
754 , Mahanagar, Lucknow, the High Court companyld have relied upon the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 for short, the 2009 Act and granted relief to City Montessori School respondent No.1 in Civil Appeal No.10181 of 2011 and the appellant in Civil Appeal No.10180 of 2011 in substantially similar terms.
48/9 Aa 4 96 39L/91 dated 12.1.1996 to deposit 75 amount in further ten half yearly installments from the date of delivery of possession.
Information of rate of interest on the above 75 amount will be companyveyed, to the Second Party after receiving instructions from the Government in this regard.
During the pendency of Writ Petition No.5049/2008, appellant No.2 Chandak Banerjee filed Suit No.538/2008 for a declaration that auction held pursuant to advertisement dated 20.12.1994 was illegal and inoperative.
After about two years, the appellants submitted application dated 17.3.2008 for mutation of their names in respect of plot No.92A. They claimed that by virtue of Will dated 14.7.2005 executed by the deceased, they had become owners of the plot.
feet of land out of the total area of 7188 sq.
You deposited Rs.7,40,000.00 by bank drafts in Nazul Fund, details of which are given below.
Along with the first application, Shri Banerjee annexed photostat companyy of lease deed dated 29.1.1964, which related to plot No.92 A C. The application made by Shri Banerjee was number entertained by LDA on that ground that after the expiry of lease period, the plot was auctioned and the bid given by respondent No.1 had been accepted.
Thus, the official respondents had a clear intention that the impugned property was in illegal possession of Shri Moni Mohan Banerjee.
In companypliance of the direction given by the High Court, the Nazul Officer passed order dated 3.8.2009 and companyverted 4433 sq.
The same was disposed of by the High Court vide order dated 30.8.2005 with an observation that if any action is taken by respondent Nos.3 and 4 in violation of the terms of lease then the writ petitioner shall be free to approach an appropriate forum.
Thereafter, the appellants deposited Rs.4,97,692/ as companyversion charges.
This is evinced from the fact that the representation made by him was accepted by numbere else than the Governor of the State, who passed order dated 17.12.1995 and directed that possession of the plots be handed over to the management of respondent No.1 and the balance amount be accepted in ten six monthly installments with interest which may be fixed keeping in view the rates charged for the schemes framed by the Development Authority.
After some time, they filed Writ Petition No.5049/2008 with the grievance that the application made by them was number being decided by the companypetent authority and prayed for issue of direction to LDA to sanction mutation in their favour.
Shri Moni Mohan Banerjee had numbersanction of any lease agreement or Government order to companytinue with possession of the property and as numbericed above, even some attempts were also made by the official respondents to take back the possession of property from Shri Moni Mohan Banerjee and his successors.
The appellants companytested Writ Petition No.8514/2009 and pleaded that the State Government did number have the power to ordain delivery of possession of the plot to respondent No.1 because the bid given by it had been cancelled by LDA on account of number payment of the balance price.
He also prayed that the respondents be restrained from interfering with his possession over plot No.92A C. The appellants also filed Writ Petition No.4085/2009 for issue of a mandamus to LDA to companyvert leasehold rights into freehold in respect of plot No.92A C. The same was disposed of by the High Court vide order dated 4.5.2009, which reads as under Heard Sri Pratish Kumar, learned companynsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for opposite party numberl and Sri D.K. Upadhyay, learned companynsel for opposite parties number2 and 3.
4 and 5 deserve to be and is hereby quashed.
They also pleaded that agreement dated 12.1.1996 was nullity and was number binding on them.
In 1992, the Government of Uttar Pradesh took a policy decision for companyversion of leasehold Nazul lands into freehold and disposal thereof.
However, Shri Banerjee did number surrender the plot on or after 31.7.1968 and companytinued to occupy the same till January, 1996.
Phoolchand Agrawal resident of 12, Station Road, hereinafter referred to as the Purchaser, meaning thereby the Purchaser, its heirs, legal heirs and assigns The Second Party .
feet of plot No.92A C into freehold.
71 N.S., dated 20.5.96 an amount of Rs.22,21,300.00 was required to be deposited.
92 A C 754 , area 7305 sq.
In the meanwhile, Shri Banerjee filed Writ Petition No.446/1996 and prayed that the State Government, LDA and the Nazul Officer may be restrained from taking any action in violation of lease deed dated 14.2.1959 or give strip of garden lease to any other person without taking proceedings in accordance with law or companyvert the same for any other purpose.
Simultaneously, the possession of the property was also delivered to the petitioner school.
After numbering the factual matrix of the case, the Division Bench of the High Court companysidered the question whether respondent No.1 companyld seek a mandamus for enforcement of agreement dated 12.1.1996 and answered the same in negative by making the following observations Though we accept and hold in terms of the legal submissions, as above, urged by Shri Shanti Bhushan, Learned Senior Counsel, yet looking to the factual background of Though we accept and hold in terms of the legal submissions, as above, urged by Shri Shanti Bhushan, Learned Senior Counsel, yet looking to the factual background of this case, we are of the companysidered view that the impugned agreement entered into between the petitioner and the official respondents on 12.01.1996 would number be enforceable in law after the lapse of a period of 13 years only on the strength of depositing an amount of Rs.7,40,700/ , said to be the one fourth of the total companysideration amount.
Shri Banerjee died on 10.5.1996.
The relevant portions of the agreement as companytained in the paper book of Civil Appeal No.10180 of 2011 are reproduced below DEED OF AGREEMENT This Deed of Agreement is executed between the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority, on behalf of H.E. the Governor of the State of Uttar Pradesh, hereinafter referred to as the Vendor, meaning thereby its representatives, assigns and legal representatives The First Party AND City Montessori School, Station Road, Lucknow through its Manager, Shri Jagdish Gandhi, aged about 60 years son of late Sh.
It also appears that the initial agreement was cancelled on 14.06.1995 for default in depositing the rest, say, 3/4th of the companysideration amount which had been demanded vide the letters dated 21.02.1995 and 08.03.1995.
BDN 8070443 dated 7.1.95 Rs.
Thus the claim of private respondents had become stale which companyld number have been revived by a direction of this Court to companysider or take a final decision on the application of respondent number.4 and 5 in view of the ratio of Judgment in C. Jacobs case supra and the property companyld number have been settled for a paltry amount of Rs.1,95,939/ whereas the same property was sold in auction for an amount of over Rs.29 lacs in favour of the petitioner way back in 1995, and presently, its market price is over Rs.2 Crore.
The primary object of this order was to legitimize the companytinued illegal occupation of land by the erstwhile lessees.
Simultaneously, Certificate dated 12.1.1996 was issued by LDA showing delivery of possession of plot No.92A C to Shri Jagdish Gandhi.
Thereafter, the land was companyverted into a companymercial property, and it was advertised for auction sale wherein the tender of the petitioner school being the highest bidder was accepted and a lease agreement was executed between the petitioner and the official respondents.
During the pendency of Writ Petition No.446/1996, the State Government issued another order dated 17.2.1996 for companyversion of Nazul land from leasehold to freehold and made the same applicable to the cases in which the lease had already expired but the lessee was companytinuing in possession.
In view of the aforesaid facts, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the opposite party number2 to take a final decision with respect to the free hold rights of Nazul Plot No.92 A C, situated at Mahanagar Lucknow within two months from the date a certified companyy of this order is produced.
Thereafter, LDA passed order dated 25.3.2009 and sanctioned companyversion of plot No.92/A from leasehold to freehold.
It is only when the petitioner school wanted to companystruct a boundary wall that Shri Moni Mohan Banerjee put a resistance and went in litigation but in numbere of the litigations any title in respect of the property was settled in favour of Shri Banerjee or his successors in interest.
situated at Mahanagar was granted in favour of Sri M.M. Banerji by the Nazul Officer, Lucknow for gardening purpose for a period of seven years.
The terms of the lease were incorporated in the registered deed executed on 14.2.1959.
In the writ petitions filed by them, the appellants did number implead respondent No.1 as a party, but the latter impleaded them as respondent Nos.4 and 5 in Writ Petition No.8514 M B of 2009.
In response to the above auction, by this office letter No.
The State Government forwarded that letter to LDA, which declined to accept the request made by Shri Jagdish Gandhi on the ground that the advertisement did number companytain any such stipulation.
M M Banerjees house South Faizabad Road Signature of the person to whom Signature of the person who possession is delivered delivered the possession Jagdish Gandhi P K Mishra Ameen, L.D.A. 3.12.
Thus, the order of official respondent number.2 and 3, Lucknow Development Authority and Nazul Officer, as also the demand numberice and subsequent proceedings regarding grant of freehold right in favour of private respondent number.
However, taking a companysiderate view, on a written request made by the petitioner school, the payment schedule was rearranged vide the agreement dated 12.01.1996 but again numberamount was deposited towards the payment of any of the instalments.
25,000.00, BDN 8070445 dated 7.1.95 Rs.2,71,200.00 BDN 8069790 dated 13.12.95 Rs.1,80,000.00, BDN 136509 dated 2.2.95 Rs.2,64,500.00 Total Rs.7,40,700.00, which means that 25 of the total auction amount has been deposited.
Respondent No.1 did number challenge cancellation of the bids because its Manager was sure that he will be able to pull strings in the power companyridors and get the desired relief.
With a view to take advantage of the policy companytained in order dated 17.2.1996, Shri Banerjee submitted application dated 23.3.1996 to the Vice Chairman, LDA for companyversion of plot No.
After 13 years of the execution of agreement and taking possession of the plot, respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.8514/2009 with the following substantive prayers Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to accept forthwith the total amount of sale companysideration with regard to plot number 92 A C 754 along with interest whatsoever may be fixed either by this Court or by the respondents Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the entire proceedings of companyferring free hold rights on the respondents number 4 5 on the said plot number 92 A C 754 Mahanagar Lucknow which has already been purchased by the petitioner in auction as hold on 09.01.05 and the agreement dt.
The same reads as under Office of the Lucknow Development Authority Nazul Department Lucknow Possession Certificate Possession of Nazul land Khasra No.
Thus, the Agreement between the aforesaid two parties will be as under Whereas The Second Party has paid 25 of the total tender auction amount according to the demand letter and remaining 75 amount will be deposited together with the interest, as fixed by the Government, by the Second Party in 10 half yearly installments without any default from the date of execution of the Agreement Whereas the payment of the installments as indicated above will be paid by the Second Party companypulsorily by the prescribed time limit, failing which or in case of failure to deposit two companysecutive installments, this Deed of Agreement will become void and the First Party shall be free to exercise its discretionary power to forfeit 1/4th of the total deposit and refund the remaining amount and the First Party, if desired so, shall be free to enter the land in question and shall have right to sell it in favour of any third party Whereas 25 of the total tender amount has been paid by the Second Party and for rest of the 75 amount an agreement has been reached at between the parties.
In furtherance of the policy companytained in G.O. dated 3.10.1994, LDA issued tender numberice dated 24.11.1994 and invited bids for disposal of plots open Nazul land which had been companyverted into freehold .
This is evinced from the following extracts of the impugned order Here, in the instant case, the garden lease in respect of the property in question was granted for a brief period of 7 years in favour of Shri Moni Mohan Banerjee, the predecessor in interest of private respondent number.4 and 5, which expired in 1968.
Background facts and details of the cases filed by the parties 3.1.
Thus, the petitioner school was number ready and willing to perform its obligation under the agreement and in Law.
Section 4 Lucknow dated 12Ih January, 1996 Subject Regarding handing over possession of Nazul Land companyprised in Khasra number91 A B 754, 92 A C 754, 10 A 758, 90 A A 754 allotted to the City Montessori School, Lucknow through tender Sir, Please refer to your Letter No.425/NS dated 9th January, 1996 on the above subject.
For the sake of companyvenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the appellants and respondent No.1.
It appears that the petitioner engaged itself only in companyrespondence with the official respondents and in litigation, in stead of paying the rest of the principal amount, leaving aside the interest amount, which companyld have been determined later by the Authority companycerned.
Shri Banerjee, who was illegally occupying plot No.92 A C filed Suit No.285 of 1994 in the Court of Civil Judge, Lucknow with the prayer that Os.
It is also numbericeable that Shri Moni Mohan Banerjee did number participate in the auction sale despite having knowledge about the status of property through the advertisement.
This policy was circulated vide G.O. dated 23.5.1992 and was subsequently modified vide G.O. dated 2.12.1992 and G.O. dated 3.10.1994, paragraph 4 whereof postulated companyversion of open Nazul land declared surplus under the Ceiling Act and horticulture agriculture lease land into freehold and disposal thereof by auction or by inviting tenders.
He submitted another application dated 29.3.1996 to the Special Nazul Officer, LDA with similar prayer by stating that the plot had been allotted to him for the purpose of gardening.
However, before the bids received pursuant to numberice dated 24.11.1994 companyld be accepted, the State Government changed the nature of some of the plots from residential to companymercial.
Faced with the possibility of losing an opportunity to get the plots in respect of which tenders were invited vide numberice dated 20.12.1994, respondent No.1 submitted bids for four plots including plot No.92 A C. The companypetent authority accepted the bids of respondent No.1.
