Smt. Rupa Gupta And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 6 March, 2024

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Rupa Gupta And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 6 March, 2024

1. Heard Shri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Nimai Das, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel alongwith Shri Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, learned Standing counsel for the State-respondent.

2. Pursuant to the earlier proceedings, today Shri Pradeep Kumar Yadav, A.D.M. (Nazul), Prayagraj is present in Court with the original records.

3. Present petition has been filed for the following relief : -

"(i). Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Order dated 05.07.2021 passed by the Respondent No. 2 (Annexure no. 11) by which the Petitioner's claim for freehold of the Nazul Land, being Nazul Plot No. A/6, Thornhill Road, Allahabad has been illegally deferred/stayed and

(ii). Issue a Writ, Order Or Direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Government Order dated 27.07.2020 (Annexure No. 10) to the extent it defers/stays/restrains the execution of the freehodl of the concerned property and to hold that the same is not applicable to the petitioners;

(iii) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to execute and register the Freehold deed of Nazul Plot No. A/6 Thornhill Road, Allahabad in favour of petitioners in terms of the Demand Note dated 14.10.2019 (Annexure No. 5) of the respondents."

4. At the outset, learned Senior Counsel has confined the writ petition to prayer nos. 1 and 3 only. Prayer no. 2 has been not pressed.

5. Briefly, the petitioners' ancestors were lessees of Nazul Plot No. A/6, 38-A Civil Station, Thornhill Road, Allahabad. The original lease deed was executed by the Secretary of the State for India in Council on 01.11.1928 in favour of Shri M.C. Gupta. The original term of the lease was 90 years with three sub-terms of 30 years each. It was to expire on 15.09.2018. On 30.06.2010, Shri Anand Kumar Gupta (husband of petitioner no. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2) applied for grant of free hold rights over the leased property. Rs. 21,12,500/- was deposited against Challan No. 1057, dated 30.06.2010. That application was processed on 16.07.2012. A report was submitted by the Nagar Ayukta, Allahabad to the A.D.M. (Nazul), Allahabad with respect to the total area of the leased property that could be converted to free hold. Also, during pendency of the said application, litigation was experienced in Writ Petition No. 20846 of 2014 filed by the husband of petitioner no. 1, concerning the administrative decision taken by the State Government to keep in abeyance the processing of all applications to grant free hold rights.

6. During the pendency of such proceedings Shri Anand Kumar Gupta died on 15.07.2015. Later, Writ Petition No. 20846 of 2014 filed by Shri A.K. Gupta was dismissed as withdrawn. At that point in time, the State Government came out with the revised/new free hold policy on 15.01.2015, allowing for continued validity of original applications filed under the pre-existing policy.

7. Then on 14.10.2019, the A.D.M. (Nazul), Prayagraj issued a Demand Note to the petitioners for deposit of Rs. 1,99,97,505.16/-. Against that Rs. 22,81,500/- was pre deposited. The said Demand Note was issued in the following terms:-

"पत्रांक/1359/नजूल-एस०एन०सी०-AX1-8/3705/19-20(फ्री होल्ड) दिनांक 14 अक्टूबर,2019 श्रीमती रूपा गुप्ता पत्नी स्व० आनन्द कुमार गुप्ता निवासी 38 ए, थार्नहिल रोड, प्रयागराज प्रयागराज।

मांग पत्र (डिमाणड नोटिस) अन्तर्गत फ्री होल्ड जिलाधिकारी, प्रयागराज स्वीकृति आदेश दिनांक 11.10.2019 नजूल भूमि के प्रबन्ध एवं निस्तारण विषयक शासनादेश संख्या 2268/9-आ-4-98-704एन/97 दिनांक 01 दिसम्बर, 1998 एवं शासनादेश संख्या 1956/आठ-4-08-266एन/08 दिनांक 21.10.2008 एवं शासनादेश संख्या 1171/8-4-09-266एन/08 दिनांक 26.05.2009, शासनादेश सख्या 1566/8-4-11-157 एन/2004 दिनांक 28.09.2011 व शासनादेश संख्या 01/416/8-4-14-137एन/2013 दिनांक 04.03.2014 एवं शासनादेश दिनांक 15.01.2015 में विहित व्यवस्था एवं एवं प्रक्रियानुसार नजूल भूखण्ड संख्या 6/ए थार्नहिल रोड, मौजा फतेहपुर बिछुआ प्रयागराज के अंशभाग क्षेत्रफल 1413.78 वर्गमीटर भूमि को फ्री होल्ड किये जाने हेतु देय धनराशि का निर्धारण निम्नवत किया जाता हैः-

गणना चार्ट-1 1 कुल मूल्यांकित धनराशि (क्षेत्रफल 300 वर्गमीटर x 33400/- रूपया प्रति वर्गमीटर) वर्तमान सर्किल रेट के अनुसार।

रू० 1,00,20,000.00 2 महायोजना में निर्धारित भू उपयोग/भूमि की श्रेणी आवासीय 3 निर्धारित भू उपयोग के अऩुसार आंकलित धनराशि (क्रमांक 1 का 30 प्रतिशत) रू० 30,06,000.00 गणना चार्ट-2 1 कुल मूल्यांकित धनराशि (क्षेत्रफल 1113.78 वर्गमीटर x 33400/- रूपया प्रति वर्गमीटर) वर्तमान सर्किल रेट के अनुसार।

रू०3,72,00,252.00 2 महायोजना में निर्धारित भू उपयोग/भूमि की श्रेणी आवासीय 3 निर्धारित भू उपयोग के अनुसार आंकलित धनराशि (क्रमांक 1 का 45 प्रतिशत) रू०1,67,40,113.40 ए गणना चार्ट-1 का क्रमांक 3+ गणना चार्ट 2 का क्रमांक3 रू०1,97,46,113.40 4 स्व- मूल्यांकन के आधार पर जमा धनराशि रू०21,12,500.00 5 स्व-मूल्यांकन की धनराशि समायोजित करने पर धनराशि क्रमांक 3 ए-4 रू०1,76,33,613.40 6 मांगपत्र निर्गत होने के दिनांक से 90 दिन के भीतर एकमुश्त जमा करने पर 10 प्रतिशत छूट की धनराशि क्रमांक 3 ए का 10 प्रतिशत (शासनादेश दिनांक 21.10.2008 के प्रस्तर-2 में यह व्यवस्था प्राविधानित है कि अन्तर्गत नजूल भूमि के समस्त मामलों में पूर्व की भाँति डिमाण्ड नोटिस के सापेक्ष देय समस्त धनराशि 90 दिन के अन्दर जमा करने की दशा में 10 प्रतिशत की छूट अनुमन्य होगी।

रू० 19,74,611.34 7 संयुक्त रूप से प्रयुक्त क्षेत्रफल 288.44 वर्गमीटर का भारित मूल्य रू०43,35,253.20 8 अवशेष भूमि का किराया।

रू० 3249.90 9 मांग पत्र निर्गत होने के दिनांक से 90 दिन के भीतर एकमुश्त जमा की जाने वाली फ्री होल्ड धनराशि फ्री होल्ड भूमि की धनराशि क्रमांक 5-6 रू०1,56,59,002.06 10 शुद्ध देय धनराशि क्रमांक 7+8+9 रू०1,99,97,505.16 11 पूर्व में जमा की गयी धनराशि शासनादेश दिनांक 04.03.2014 एवं संशोधन शासनादेश दिनांक 15.01.2015 के अनुसार 12 प्रतिशत साधारण ब्याज समायोजित करने वाली धनराशि मूलधन रू० 21,12,500.00 आवदेन की तिथि दिनांक 30.06.2010 से 30.06.2019 तक 09 वर्ष रू०22,81,500.00 12 पूर्व में जमा धनराशि शुद्ध देय धनराशि से घटाने पर कुल जमा की जाने वाली धनराशि क्रमांक 10-11 रू०1,77,16,005.16 एतदद्वारा आपको सूचित किया जाता है कि इस मांग-पत्र के निर्गत होने के दिनांक से 90 दिवसो की अवधि के भीतर फ्री होल्ड धनरशि एकमुश्त जमा करने पर आपको धनराशि रू० 1,77,16,005.16 (मु० एक करोड़ सतहत्तर लाख सोलह हजार पांच रूपये सोलह पैसे मात्र) आवेदक को 90 दिन के अन्दर जमा करना होगा। किन्तु 90 दिन की अवधि में जमा न करने की स्थिति में 10 प्रतिशत छूट अनुमन्य न होगी और आपको इस अवधि के पश्चात् रू०1,96,90,616.50 (मु० एक करोड़ छानबे लाख नब्बे हजार छः सौ सोलह रूपये पचास पैसे मात्र) पर भुगतान की तिथि तक 12 प्रतिशत वार्षिक चक्रवृद्धि ब्याज की दर से ब्याज के साथ धनराशि जमा कराने की बाध्यता होगी।

इसके अतिरिक्त उक्त धनराशि जमा न करने पर आपका फ्री होल्ड विषयक आवेदन पत्र निरस्त कर दिया जायेगा और आवेदन पत्र के साथ स्व-मूल्यांकन के आधार पर जमा की गयी धनराशि शासन के पक्ष में समपह्त (forfeit) ली जायगी।

नब्बे (90) दिन की अवधि की गणना हेतु मांग-पत्र में अंकित दिनांक को प्रथम दिवस माना जायगा। फ्री होल्ड की उक्त धनराशि इस कार्यालय से ट्रेजरी चालान पारित करने के उपरान्त भारतीय स्टेट बैंक की इलाहाबाद स्थित शाखा में लेखा शीर्षक "0075-विधि सामान्य सेवायें-105 भूमि औ सम्पत्ति की विक्री-00नजूल भूमि को फ्री होल्ड करने पर प्राप्त एकमुश्त राशि के अन्तर्गत जमा करना होगा।

यदि प्रश्नगत भूखण्ड के सम्बन्ध में स्वत्व के बिन्दु पर कोई विवाद उत्पन्न होता है तो शासन अथवा सक्षम न्यायालय का आदेश प्रभावी होगा और वही स्वत्व का प्रमाण माना जायगा।

आपको यह भी सूचित किया जाता है कि आपके द्वारा उक्त धनराशि जमा कर देने के पश्चात फ्री होल्ड स्वीकृति किया जाना औचित्यपूर्ण न पाये जाने पर आपके द्वारा जमा की गयी सम्पूर्ण धनराशि सक्षम प्राधिकारी की अनुमति से वापस की जा सकेगी।

धनराशी जमा करने के उपरान्त आपको चालान की मूल प्रति आपके प्रार्थना पत्र सहित कार्यालय में जमा करनी होगी तथा निर्धारित मूल्य के स्टाम्प पेपर पर फ्री होल्ड विलेख एवं मानचित्र (तीन प्रतियों में) शुद्ध रूप से तैयार कर एक सप्ताह के भीतर प्रस्तुत करना होगा। रजिस्ट्रीकरण अधिनियम 1908 की धारा 24 के प्राविधानानुसार फ्री होल्ड विलेख के निष्पादन के दिनांक से 04 माह की अवधि के भीतर इसका पंजीकरण कराना आवश्यक होगा तथा पंजीकृत विलेख एवं मानचित्र की एक प्रति इस कार्यालय में प्रस्तुत करनी होगी एवं एक प्रति नगर निगम इलाहाबाद को उपलब्ध करानी होगी।

फ्री होल्ड विलेख का पंजीकरण उक्त निर्धारित अवधि के भीतर आपके द्वारा न कराये जाने पर उक्त भूमि का विधितः (Legally and validly) फ्री होल्ड नहीं माना जायगा तथा इस भूमि पर सरकार का पुनः प्रवेश का अधिकार सुरक्षित रहेगा।

(गंगाराम गुप्ता) अपर जिलाधिकारी (नजूल) प्रयागराज।"

(emphasis supplied)

8. In compliance to that Demand Note, net demand of Rs. 1,77,16,005.16/- was raised. Against that the petitioners deposited Rs. 1,77,16,006/- through Challan dated 03.01.2020. It was sent for verification to the Treasury on 10.06.2020 and was verified on 24.06.2020.

9. After the Challan had been thus verified, it is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners purchased the Stamp Paper for execution of the free hold deed, for which purpose the draft deed was approved by the A.D.M. (Nazul), Prayagraj. The petitioner purchased the requisite Stamp Paper valued at Rs. 15,25,000/- and prepared the deed thereon. It contains amongst others the particulars of the transferrer/seller described as the Governor of Uttar Pradesh through Ganga Ram Gupta, A.D.M. (Nazul), Prayagraj, as the person authorised on behalf of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. His photograph is affixed at the first page of the document. True, that the document was not signed by the A.D.M. (Nazul), Prayagraj and thus it may not be claimed to have been executed on behalf of the Governor, at the same time paragraph no. 16 of the writ petition reads as below: -

" 16. That subsequently, the petitioner had also purchased the requisite Stamp Papers and had submitted the same in the office of Additional District Magistrate, Nazul, Prayagraj for the execution of the freehold deed. The draft freehold deed was also approved by the Additional District Magistrate, Nazul, Prayagraj and now only the execution of the Freehold deed remains.

A true copy of the Draft Free hold deed on the requisite Stamp Papers, submitted by the petitioners is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure no. 7 to this Writ petition."

10. Reply to the above, as is contained in the paragraph no. 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, reads as below:-

"8. That, the contents of paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated hence denied. It is submitted that after the death of Sri Anand Kumar Gupta his wife (petitioner no.1) submitted application dated 08.03.2018 and affidavit dated 05.03.2018 requested for getting freehold right. By the order of District Magistrate dated 11.10.2019 a demand letter no. 1359 dated 14.09.2019 was issued directing petitioner no.1 to deposit the required amount within a period of 90 days. If amount has not been deposited within 90 days no benefit of rebate of 10% be given to the petitioner. If amount will not be deposited within 90 days the 12% compound interest shall be chargeable and after depositing the required amount stamp paper for getting freehold right and three copies of map may be submitted in the office of answering respondent within a period of one week. Section 24 of Registration Act, 1908 provides that the registration shall be made within a period of four months from the date of the execution of the lease deed. If the registration will not be completed within aforesaid period no freehold right can be confirmed and the right of re-entry, the State Government over the land is reserved Petitioner deposited the required amount on 07.01.2020 and submitted the copy of the challan that was referred to the Treasury for verification on 10.06.2020. The Treasury verified the challan and returned it to the office of answering respondent no. 24.06.2020. Thereafter, State Government issued Government Order dated 27.07.2020 staying the freehold policy until further orders. It is further submitted that the then District Magistrate, Prayagraj sought guideline from the State Government in case of the petitioner and two other cases vide his letter dated 28.11.2020. The State Government vide its letter dated 05.07.2021 informed the District Magistrate, Prayagraj that at present the Government Order dated 27.07.2020 is still in existence and the earlier Government Orders are stayed, therefore, no action has been taken in the case of petitioners."

11. In such facts, it is the case of the petitioner that the execution and registration of the free hold deed was kept pending by the State-respondent, first arising from the COVID-19 circumstances. Later on 27.07.2020, Government Order dated 27.07.2020 was issued. It reads as below:-

"संख्या-3/2020/460/आठ-4-2020-137एन/2013टी०सी० प्रेषक, दीपक कुमार, प्रमुख सचिव, उत्तर प्रदेश शासन।

सेवा में,

1. समस्त मण्डलायुक्त, उत्तर प्रदेश।

2. समस्त जिलाधिकारी, उत्तर प्रदेश।

3. उपाध्यक्ष, लखनऊ विकास प्राधिकरण, लखनऊ।

आवास एवं शहरी नियोजन अनुभाग-4 लखनऊः दिनांकः 27 जुलाई,2020 विषयः नजूल भूमि को फ्री-होल्ड किये जाने सम्बन्धी समस्त शासनादेशों का स्थगन।

महोदय, उपर्युक्त विषयक शासनादेश संख्या-1562/9-आ-4-92-293एन/90 दिनांक 23.05.1992 का कृपया संदर्भ ग्रहण करने का कष्ट करें, जिसके माध्यम से नजूल भूमि के प्रबन्धन और इसके निस्तारण के सम्बन्ध में नीति निर्धारित करते हुए नजूल भूमि की फ्रीहोल्ड सम्बन्धी निर्देश निर्गत किये गये हैं। उक्त शासनादेश दिनांक 23.05.1992 के क्रम में समय-समय पर अन्य शासनादेश निर्गत किये गये हैं। वर्तमान में शासनादेश संख्या-1/416/8-4-14-137एन/2013 दिनांक 04.03.2014 तथा शासनादेश संख्या-3/2015/107/8-4-15-137एन/2013 दिनांक 15.01.2015 का शासनादेश प्रभावी है।

2. इस सम्बन्ध में मुझे यह कहने का निदेश हुआ है कि गवर्नमेण्ट ग्राण्ट एक्ट, 1895 रिपील हो चुका है। उक्त एक्ट के रिपील हो जाने के कारण उत्तर प्रदेश नजूल सम्पत्ति (प्रबन्धन एवं निस्तारण) अधिनियम,2020 के प्राख्यापन की कार्यवाही प्रक्रियाधीन है।

उपरोक्त के दृष्टिगत सम्यक विचारोपरान्त यह निर्णय लिया गया है कि नजूल भूमि से सम्बन्धित शासनादेशों को अग्रिम आदेश तक स्थगित कर दिया जाय ताकि किसी प्रकार की विषमता उत्पन्न न हो सके। उत्तर प्रदेश नजूल सम्पत्ति (प्रबन्धन एवं निस्तारण) अधिनियम, 2020 के प्राख्यापन उपरान्त नियमावली/शासनादेश निर्गत किये जाने की कार्यवाही की जायेगी। अतः नजूल भूमि के प्रबन्धन एवं निस्तारण तथा फ्रीहोल्ड सम्बन्धी निर्गत समस्त शासनादेशों को अग्रिम आदेशों तक स्थगित किया जाता है।

कृपया उपरोक्तानुसार आवश्यक कार्यवाही करने का कष्ट करें।

भवदीय, दीपक कुमार प्रमुख सचिव।"

12. Upon the petitioner pressing for execution of free hold deed, the District Magistrate sought certain clarification from the Principal Secretary Housing and Urban Development vide communication dated 28.11.2020. Specifically referring to the petitioners pending claim, it was observed as below:-

"3- नजूल भूखण्ड संख्या ए/6 थार्नहिल रोड के अंशभाग को फ्री होल्ड किये जाने हेतु आवेदक श्रीमती रुपा गुप्ता द्वारा प‌ट्टेदार के आधार पर क्षेत्रफल 1690 वर्गमीटर भूमि को फी होल्ड किये जाने हेतु आवेदन प्रस्तुत किया गया था। उक्त आवेदन पत्र की जाच नगर निगम से करायी गयी। नगर निगम द्वारा अपनी रथलीय एवं अभिलेखीय आख्या के अन्तर्गत 1413.78 वर्गमीटर भूमि फी होल्ड योग्य बतायी गयी, जिसपर शासनादेश दिनांक 04.03.2014 एवं शासनादेश दिनांक 15.01.2015 में विहित व्यवस्थानुसार विचार करते हुये जिलाधिकारी के आदेश दिनांक 11.10.2019 के अन्तर्गत की होल्ड की स्वीकृति प्रदान की गयी और तत्कम में दिनांक 14.10.2019 के द्वारा आवेदक को मांग पत्र जारी किया गया।"

(emphasis supplied)

13. It is in response to that communication that the District Magistrate has been informed by the higher administrative authorities that free hold deed may not be executed in view of the Government Order dated 27.7.2020.

14. Submission of learned Senior counsel for the petitioners is, the petitioners had applied for grant of free hold rights in terms of the then existing policy. Upon change of policy, the petitioners further agreed to and complied with the terms of the changed policy. Not only the petitioners made such claim but the same was examined on the true test of the revised policy. Thus, the Nagar Ayukt, Allahabad made a report on 16.7.2012 to allow free hold rights be conferred on the petitioners. The Demand Note dated 11.10.2019 specifically computed the exact amount to be paid being consideration for free hold rights to be confered. The petitioners complied with those terms and deposited the entire amount against Challan approved by the administrative authorities all acting strictly according to the then existing policy. The deposit of the amount is admitted to the respondents. There is no outstanding demand.

15. Thereafter, relying on the contents of the paragraph no. 16 of the writ petition, it has been asserted, the draft deed was prepared as directed by the then ADM (Nazul), Prayagraj. Requisite Stamp Paper was purchased. Also, for that purpose, the details and photograph of the then ADM (Nazul), Prayagraj, Gangaram Gupta was made available to the petitioners. Having prepared the final deed, it was for the respondent to execute the same and allow for its due registration strictly on terms specified in the Demand Note. Since the Government Order dated 27.07.2020 was issued well after the petitioners had abided by the terms of the Demand Note and due payment had been made by the petitioners on 03.01.2020, the application made by the petitioners to be granted free hold rights stood allowed. Stage for application of mind did not survive beyond that stage or date.

16. The issuance of the Demand Note was the final and absolute intimation issued by the respondent authorities as to the terms to be complied by the petitioners - to obtain free-hold rights over the property in question. Up to the stage of issuance of the Demand Note, the application/representation made by the petitioners survived for application of mind by the respondent authorities. The petitioner signified their acceptance to the terms of the Demand Note by making the deposit of the entire amount demanded. Once that amount was deposited, it was no longer open to respondent authority to resile from the Demand Note or to avoid the consequences arising from its compliance made by the petitioners.

17. Thereafter, neither the free-hold application made by the petitioner remained pending with the respondent authorities nor it would otherwise be just or fair or reasonable on the test of Part III of the Constitution of India to allow the respondent State authorities to change their stand merely because it may technically or legally be permissible to them to change their stand. Such an act would be arbitrary. They could not withhold the performance of ministerial acts of execution of free hold deed and the further act of its registration. The respondents had purposely, deliberately, and positively induced the petitioners to alter their stand, by paying the amount demanded under the Demand Note and further to pay the due Stamp Duty required for registration of the free-hold deed.

18. Seen in that light, it has been submitted, it is too late and impermissible on part of the respondent State authorities to rely on the Government Order dated 27.7.2020 - to resist the ministerial act of execution of the deed or the further act its registration. That Government Order would apply to free hold applications that may be pending at any stage requiring application of mind, i.e. prior to issuance of the Demand Note and, in any case, it may not apply to cases where the money demanded may have already been paid. The petitioners having paid the due amount well before the issuance of the Government Order dated 27.07.2020, the Government Order being referred to by the respondents has no application to the present facts.

19. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and learned Standing Counsel have asserted that no substantive rights of free hold vested in the petitioners. Merely because they may have deposited the amount demanded against the Demand Note dated 11.10.2019, no substantive rights arose to them. They submit, since execution and registration of the free hold deed are mandatory requirements under the Registration Act, 1908, no rights could ever vest in the petitioners, till due execution of such deed.

20. Relying on the Government Order dated 27.07.2020, it has been submitted, the free hold policy itself having been stayed, no rights have arisen to the petitioners at present. Then heavy reliance has been placed in full bench decision of this Court in Anand Kumar Sharma versus State of UP and others decided on 13.02.2014 neutral citation 2014:AHC:22894-HC, wherein, in the context of an earlier policy it was opined that no rights had vested in any applicant, merely upon filing of the application to acquire free hold rights, under the old policy. The evidentiary rule of legitimate expectation was found to be inadequate to grant, vest or preserve any right claimed under the pre-existing free hold policy. Once the government introduced the new policy, rights being claimed would stand determined under the new policy. In that context, it has been submitted that though not notified, the State Government had already taken a decision to introduce a new law with respect to free hold rights being claimed by the petitioners.

21. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, there can be no dispute to the fact that legitimate expectation remains a rule of evidence. Therefore, it may not itself be claimed as a substantive right. At the same time in Anand Kumar Sharma (supra) the questions referred to the full bench was as below: -

""1. Whether the application of the petitioner dated 25.7.2005 submitted for grant of freehold right on the basis of the Government Order dated 1.12.1998 (Paragraph 7) and the Government Order dated 10.12.2002 (paragraph 5) was entitled to be considered in accordance with the Government policy as was in existence on the date of application or the Government policy as amended by Government Order dated 4.8.2006, was to be taken into consideration while deciding the application on 18.12.2006?

2. Whether the Division Bench judgment in Dr. O.P. Gupta Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (4) AWC 4038 lays down the correct law?"

22. Upon detailed scrutiny of the law, the full bench first opined as below: -

"For the above it is clear that legitimate expectation may arise -

(a) if there is an express promise given by a public authority; or

(b) because of the existence of a regular practice which the claimant can reasonably expect to continue;

(c) Such an expectation must be reasonable.

However, if there is a change in policy or in public interest the position is altered by a rule or legislation, no question of legitimate expectation would arise."

In the above case also the apex court had laid down that if there is a change in policy or in public interest the position is altered by a rule or legislation, no question of legitimate expectation would arise."

23. Then as to the conspectus of law scrutinized by the full bench, it was noted that in P.T.R. Export (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Union of India and others, (1996) 5 SCC 268, the petitioners (in that case) had no right to claim (in the context of the new export policy), legitimate expectation based on transactions performed in the past and possibility of similar transactions arising in the future. Insofar as, the new policy may not have allowed the petitioners (in that case) to avail benefit as may have been available under the old policy, the claim based solely on legitimate expectation was negated.

24. In Kusumam Hotel Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and others (2008) 13 SCC 213, the Supreme Court held in favour of review of policy, from time to time. Here also we are not proposing to restrain the State-respondent from reviewing their pre-existing free-hold policy. At the same time, a vital distinction of fact exists. Here, the State Government had not reviewed its policy on 20.07.2020. In fact, it chose to initiate a review of its existing policy. Therefore, we must test the impact of that limited decision on the transactions already performed and or firm written promise made. The decision at 20.07.2020 being an executive decision and not a legislative step it did not inhere any legal force to undo a transaction already complete and/or to revoke the promise already made (by the State Government) and acted upon (by the petitioners). The issues are - upto what stage or point in time a transaction performed under a pre-existing State policy may be undone to the grave prejudice of a law-abiding citizen? and whether such an executive power could have been exercised solely to undo a transaction performed by the executive in accordance with the law?

25. In the backdrop of the undisputed peculiar facts of this case, we find the submission advanced by Shri Shashi Nandan to be correct that the dictate of the pre-existing policy was to help the lessor and the lessee take an informed decision on the application to grant free hold rights. The petitioner's predecessor late Shri Anand Kumar Gupta had made that application. It remained pending without issuance of final Demand Note. Therefore, review of the free-hold policy was possible at that stage, as may have bearing on the petitioner's application. It was made in the year 2011-2014. Till then, it had survived to the State Government to revise its policy and consider the application made, in terms of the revised policy. Second, upon that policy revision, the application of Shri Anand Kumar Gupta was pressed by the petitioners. On that, the report of the Nagar Ayukt, Prayagraj was also obtained.

26. Then, that application was considered according to the terms of the revised free-hold policy. Finally, the Demand Note came to be issued specifying the terms on which the free hold application of the petitioners was to be allowed. Those terms have been extracted above, in extenso. Bare perusal of the same reveals that the State-respondents considered the claim made by the petitioners in the backdrop of the then existing/revised freehold policy and proceeded to compute in exact terms and detail the total consideration demanded by considering the value of the land as per then prevailing Circle Rates, user of land as residential and the value of the existing constructions. Then it proceeded to apply a percentage of the total value of land (at Circle Rate base) and computed the consideration for grant of free hold rights. Thus, the net demand was computed as Rs. 17716005.16/-. Not only the above amount was computed, but the Demand Note further recited the terms and the conditions for deposit and the consequences of its violation and deviation.

27. Here, it may be noted that the respondents reserved to themselves the right to cancel the Demand Note against specified contingencies namely - (i) if payment was not made within 90 days and/or (ii) if the State Government formed a view, it was not "औचित्यपूर्ण"/justified/proper to grant freehold rights to the petitioners. Those reasons by their very nature could arise on the peculiar facts of this case. In any case, they did not create a right in favour of the State Government to unilaterally resile from the promise made - of its own sweet will. To allow that discretion to the State Government would be to allow the State Government to act whimsically. It would be patently arbitrary and unreasonable. By first encouraging the citizens/petitioners to alter their position (to their prejudice) by making full deposit against the Demand Note, and later not binding itself to act in good faith (by honouring its corresponding promise that alone led the citizens to alter their position), if recognised, would be a fraudulent and in any case a rank dishonest exercise of power. Here the State Government being one governed and guided by the Constitution of India, may never have acted in such a capricious manner. There exists a Constitutional guarantee against such an exercise of power. Much before 20.07.2020, the freehold application of the petitioners had passed the stage of application of mind. Upon issuance of the Demand Note dated 14.10.2019, the final terms of its acceptance had been specified by the State Government - in black and white. Upon full deposit made by the petitioners in compliance thereto and upon its verification on 24.06.2020, that application did not survive. Before that, no step had been taken or contemplated to generally review or revise the freehold policy of the State Government. Therefore, the decision of the State Government dated 20.07.2020 cannot be read to apply to the present set of facts. Also, as a fact the Demand Note was never cancelled/withdrawn nor any facts have been pleaded or shown to exist to establish why in the individual facts of this case, the petitioners were not entitled to the consequences of abiding by the terms of the Demand Note.

28. What survived thereafter was the ministerial act of execution of the free hold deed and its registration. Even in that regard, as noted above, the authority and full details of the executant of the transferor/agent namely ADM (Nazul), Prayagraj were made available to the petitioners. Those find mention on the draft deed prepared on the Stamp Paper purchased by the petitioners. We also find it strange and rather unbelievable that such an event would have come to pass - that a final deed would have been prepared on valuable Stamp Paper with all its terms and specifications disclosed in detail, without the prior approval of the respondent authority. The petitioners claim that the deed was prepared on its draft being approved by the ADM (Nazul), Prayagraj. That categorical averment has been made in paragraph 16 of the writ petition (noted above). Its denial is only evasive and bald. Unless the fact of draft deed being approved by the ADM (Nazul), Prayagraj had been specifically denied, in face of the other facts proven - of such deed having been prepared on Stamp Paper duly purchased by the petitioners with full particulars of the person authorised to execute the deed on behalf of the transferee State, we disbelieve and reject the objection being raised by the Additional Chief Standing counsel that the preparation of final deed was a self-serving act of the petitioners. There is no dispute as to the correctness and completeness of the terms of that deed prepared by the petitioners.

29. Here it may also be noted, it is for reason of such doubt, we required the learning Standing Counsel to produce the original record to ascertain how the final deed came to be prepared on duly purchased Stamp Paper. The record that has been produced today, in two volumes does not contain any document to either support the petitioners claim or to doubt the same. Yet, the contents of paragraph 8 of the Counter Affidavit (extracted about) are described to be sworn on the strength of record. Plainly, there is no record shown to exist in support of the objection raised by the respondents. Therefore, the denial made in paragraph 8 of the Counter Affidavit is wholly bald and unbelievable. Being non-specific it is disbelieved on the principle of non-traverse.

30. Also, there exists secondary evidence on record - in the shape of clarification sought by the District Magistrate from the Government of U.P., on 28.11.2020. It clearly records that permission had already been granted by the District Magistrate to grant free hold rights to the petitioners. Thus, much before the date 27.7.2020 the final decision had already been made by the District Magistrate, the duly competent authority to grant free hold rights to the petitioners. Substantively, the application for grant of such free hold rights stood allowed both by conduct of parties and on the strength of documentary evidence. Thereafter, that application survived for technical purposes i.e. completion of ministerial acts. Since the application stood allowed, we are not inclined to accept the further objection of the State that the freehold deed could neither be executed nor registered for the reason to general decision to stay the freehold policy qua pending applications, that too by the own act of the State Government, in contemplation of review of the freehold policy.

31. Execution of the sale deed and its registration are acts when performed would give rise to evidence of the freehold rights granted in favour of the applicant citizen. They give rise to a declaration/acknowledgement to the world of such rights granted. Strictly, the eligibility circumstances, conditions, and the terms on which freehold rights could be granted fell within the ambit of the freehold policy. As noted above, that policy was revised in the year 2011-14. The petitioners' application to acquire those rights was considered by the District Magistrate and was allowed by a conscious act - evidenced by the issuance of the Demand Note dated 11.10.2019 and the further letter of the District Magistrate dated 28.11.2020. Hence, the ration of the full-bench decision of the Court in Anand Kumar Sharma (supra) is distinguishable.

32. The execution of the free hold deed is a mandate of the Registration Act, 1908. No conveyance with respect to immovable property may arise except against registration of a duly executed deed. For that purpose, the freehold deed must be in writing, and it must be duly executed and registered. It creates evidence of transaction performed by the parties to it. It creates evidence of rights that may be recognised in rem. Therefore, a clear distinction and demarcation exists in the present facts, as allows us to reach at the conclusion that the stay of the freehold policy by the State Government on 27.7.2020 had no impact on the ministerial act that had remained to be performed in pursuance to the decision already made and acted upon by the parties. Once the freehold application had been thus allowed by the District Magistrate the consequential ministerial acts could not be withheld thereafter. Those had to be duly performed in full - in justice, equity, good conscience, and fair play.

33. In view of the above, even the fact that a new freehold policy may be on the anvil may have no impact in such facts. The ministerial act that ought to have been performed at the relevant time and that remained to be performed for no good reason in law or on facts, cannot be defeated, occasioned by the new policy. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Let freehold deed be executed in favour of the petitioners within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is served on respondent no. 3. No order as to costs.

 
Order Date :- 6.3.2024
 
Bhanu
 

 
(Surendra Singh-I,J)     (S. D. Singh,J)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court