STATE OF U.P. & ORS. versus MAHARAJA DHARMANDER PRASAD SINGH ETC

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 176 · Decided: 17-01-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
v. 
MAHARAJA DHARMANDER PRASAD SINGH ETC. 
JANUARY 17, 1989 
B 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.] 
c 
Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973: Ss 
14, 15, 37 & 41: Lucknow Development Authority-Permission for 
development of land by private party-Cancellation/revocation of-
Validity of. 
Constitution of India, Article 226: Forfeiture and cancellation of 
/ease-Whether can be agitated in writ proceedings-Judicial review-
Scope and nature of. 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Ss. 108, 111 & I 14A-Lessee-
D Nature of possession after expiry/forfeiture of /ease-Forcible dispos-
session prohibited. 
Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development 
+ 
Act, 1973 provides for declaration of an area to he a 'development area' 
J. • 
by gazette notification. Section 14(1) of the Act interdicts development 
E of land in such an area by any person or body unless permission has 
been obtained from the Vice-Chairman of the Development Authority. 
Section 15(1) requires every person or body desirous of obtaining 
-
permission to make an appUcation in the manner prescribed. Section 
15(3) empowers the Vice-Chairman, after making such an enquiry as he 
considers necessary, either to grant the permission subject to such con-
--\__ 
F 
ditions .as be may specify, or refuse the permission. Section 15(5) pro-
vides for an appeal to the Chairman against an order made by the 
Vice-Chairman refusing permission. Section 37 inter alia makes an 
order of the Vice-Chairman made under s. 15 linal. Section 41(1) makes 
it incumbent on the Authority (the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman) to 
carry out such directions as may he issued to it from time to time by the 
G 
State Government for the efficient administration of the Act. Section 
41(3) confers revisional powers on the State Government. 
The respondent-lessees applied to the appellant-Development 
Authority under s. 15(1) of the Act for permission to put up a multi-
storeyed building on the demised plot. The Vice-Chairman of the 
H Authority sanctioned the permission by his order dated January 31, 
176 
,.+ .. 
-
STATE OF U.P. v. D.P. SINGH 
177 
1985. However, on July 24, 1985 the State Government issued direc-
tions purporting to be under 8; 41(1) ofthe Act interdicting the progress 
of construction on ground of violation of the conditio~ of the lease. The 
High Court allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondents and 
quashed the said directions. 
Thereafter, on August 12, 1985 the State Government brought to 
the notice of the Vice-Chairman serious illegalities in the building sanc-
tion and indicated that the same be reviewed and revoked, to which he 
did not agree. Finally, by its communication dated October 15, 1985 
addressed to the Chairman of the Authority the State Government 
directed him to initiate immediate proceedings against the respondents 
for making misrepresentations, fraudulent statements and concealing 
material facts in obtaining building permission. To that letter was 
annexed a notice for service on the lessees and the builder associated 
with construction to show cause for cancellation of the lease and demoli-
tion of unauthorised construction. The respondents filed their objec-
tions against the proposed cancellation, but the Government by its 
order dated November 19, 1985 found the explanation unacceptable 
and proceeded to terminate the lease. This order was challenged by the 
respondent-lessees in a writ petition before the High Court. 
Subsequently, the Vice-Chairman of the Authority in a separate 
action issued notice dated January 9, 1986 to the respondents to show 
cause why the bnilding permission granted on January 31, 1985 should 
not be cancelled. Respondents objected to the proposed action but the 
Authority found the objections unacceptable and proceeded by its order 
dated April 19, 1986 to cancel the permission. The two lessees chal-
lenged this cancellation in writ petitions before the High Court. 
The High Court found that the proceedings initiated and the 
action taken by the Government and the Vice-Chairman of the Author-
ity in the matter, respectively, of forfeiture of the lease and the cancella-
tion of the permission to build were both infirm in law and required to 
be quashed. It took the view that a reasonable opportunity of being heard 
had been denied to the lessee-respondents, ·and that the grounds for 
forfeiture of the lease were irrelevant and illusory; that the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.