Allahabad High Court
Anjana Agarwal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 September, 2025
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:153730-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 35375 of 2013
Anjana Agarwal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
D.S. Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Suresh Singh
Court No. - 29
(SL No.270)
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Order on Civil Misc. Impleadment Application Impleadment application is rejected on ground of delay and laches.
Order on Civil Misc. Writ Petition
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Suresh Singh, learned counsel for Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority.
2. The writ petition was preferred for a direction to respondent no.2, Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (in short, 'YEIDA') to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the Plot No. 498 in Pocket No. N Sector-20, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar and to provide the present status of the said plot of the petitioner and also to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 22.04.2013.
3. The record reflects that the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, had floated a Scheme for allotment of residential plots in the year, 2009. The petitioner has applied for the same and in lieu of which an allotment-cum-allocation letter dated 20.11.2009 had also been issued in his favour with the condition that the petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,84,000/- on or before 18.01.2010. It appears that YEIDA, by means of general extension time, extended the deadline for payment upto 31.01.2010, thereafter, upto 08.02.2010 and lastly, it was extended till 19.02.2010. The said extension of time was duly advertised in widely circulated newspapers 'Dainik Jagran' and 'Amar Ujala'. In view of the general notice and in terms of the allotment letter it was further clarified that no further extension of time shall be accorded for deposits and in case of default, the allotment shall be deemed to be cancelled. The record also reflects that the Authority had also refunded the amount of Rs. 6,24,000/- through HDFC Bank on 15.07.2010 to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in the instant matter the petitioner had also deposited certain amount the details of which has also been given in the writ petition and he submits that same has been accepted without any objection by the Authority. He submits that the Authority in most arbitrary manner, even when the proceedings were pending consideration before this Court, has auctioned the property and third party interest has been created in the year 2024. He further submits that the petitioner is inclined to clear the outstanding amount as on date. The cancellation order is to be revoked and the allotment is to be restored.
5. Per contra, Sri Suresh Singh, learned counsel for YEIDA resisted the relief and submits that admittedly, in terms of the allotment letter dated 20.11.2009, the petitioner had not deposited the requisite amount and the order dated 12.10.2012 has already been been passed in the year 2012, which had also been brought on record alongwith the counter affidavit which was filed in the year 2013. He further submits that a stale claim cannot be revived by means of a new representation, when there was chronic default on the part of the petitioner.
6. We find that initially the allotment was made way back in the year 2009, after which several time extensions were accorded to the allottees for making payment on subsequent occasions, even then the petitioner has miserably failed to comply to the same. So now, for the sole purpose of revival of allotment, reconsideration of representation cannot be permitted at this stage, moreso, when a third party interest has already been created and the subsequent allottee had deposited the entire amount on 11.10.2024.
7. The Hon?ble Apex Court in a recent judgment of Kamla Nehru Memorial Trust and Others v. U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and Others Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 31887-88/2017 has held that, in order to preserve the integrity of the allotment process, allowing deliberate and repeated defaults by an allottee to persist unchecked would undermine the entire framework of land allocation and set a harmful precedent detrimental to public interest. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced herein below:?
?25. We may hasten to add at this stage that the dues for the Subject Land, allotted in 2003, remained unpaid despite multiple communications spanning several years. KNMT not only failed to make timely payments but also sought unwarranted concessions, including waiver of interest and rescheduling of dues. This persistent non-compliance establishes KNMT as a chronic defaulter, while the continued attempts to seek waiver evince a deliberate strategy to avoid payment obligations. UPSIDC's action in treating KNMT as a defaulter was, therefore, both justified and necessary to preserve the integrity of the allotment process. Allowing such deliberate defaults to persist unchecked would undermine the entire framework of land allocation and set a detrimental precedent.
?26. For the reasons stated, we are satisfied that the cancellation of allotment by UPSIDC is fully justified and in accordance with law.
E. INVOKING THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE IN THE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES.
27. The prolonged litigation initiated by KNMT has spanned over fifteen years, unnecessarily burdening the judicial system and impeding the efficient functioning of public authorities. Such protracted disputes highlight the need for more stringent initial evaluation processes to prevent chronic defaults.
28. While we have upheld the cancellation due to KNMT's default, the circumstances reveal systemic concerns in the original allocation process. UPSIDC allotted the Subject Land to KNMT within merely two months of application, raising questions about the thoroughness of the evaluation. Furthermore, during the pendency of 4. this dispute, UPSIDC demonstrated remarkable alacrity in considering alternative allotments to M/s. Jagdishpur Paper Mills Ltd.
29. We, therefore, consider it necessary to examine whether UPSIDC's procedure for industrial land allotment meets standards of administrative propriety, particularly in light of the Public Trust Doctrine (Doctrine) mandating that public resources be managed with due diligence, fairness, and in conformity with public interest.
30. The Doctrine emanates from the ancient principle that certain resources (seashores, rivers and forests) are so intrinsically important to the public that they cannot be subjected to unrestricted private control. Rooted in Roman law and incorporated into English common law, this Doctrine recognizes that the Sovereign holds specific resources as a trustee for present and future generations. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388, para 24-25.
31. In the Indian context, the Doctrine has evolved to encompass public resources meant for collective benefit, reflecting the constitutional mandate Under Article 21. As held in Natural Resources Allocation In re, while the Doctrine does not impose an absolute prohibition on transferring public trust property, it subjects such alienation to stringent judicial review to ensure legitimate public purpose and adequate safeguards. Centre for Public Interest Litigation V. Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 1
32. When a substantial tract of industrial land is allocated without a comprehensive evaluation, it raises critical questions about adherence to these principles. The Doctrine requires that allocation decisions be preceded by a thorough assessment of public benefits, beneficiary credentials, and safeguards ensuring continued compliance with stated 8 purposes.
33. The allocation of 125 acres of industrial land to KNMT without a competitive process fundamentally violated the Doctrine, which demands proper procedure and substantive accountability in public resource allocation. UPSIDC ought to have considered verifiable evidence of economic benefits, employment generation potential, environmental sustainability, and alignment with regional development objectives to demonstrate that the decision serves the collective benefit. The failure to adopt transparent mechanisms not only deprived the public exchequer of potential revenue-as evidenced by the substantial appreciation in the value of such a large tract of land-but also created a system where privileged access supersedes equal opportunity. This betrays the fiduciary relationship between the State and its citizens.
34. Having upheld the cancellation due to KNMT's chronic default, we observe that the hasty allotment followed by years of litigation exemplifies systemic deficiencies in the allocation process. This necessitates comprehensive directions to ensure that future allocations uphold principles of transparency and accountability, thereby preventing prolonged disputes while ensuring that public resources genuinely promote industrial development and economic growth.
F. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS
35. In light of our detailed examination of the contentions raised by the parties, the comprehensive analysis of the factual and legal matrix and the resultant conclusions, we uphold the cancellation of the allotment by UPSIDC.?
8. Considering the factual situation, this court is of the considerate opinion that once the petitioner has failed to establish any ground warranting interference, no relief can be accorded to him at this belated stage. In view of the above writ petition sans merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the interest of justice we observe that in case the petitioner files an application for refund of the remaining deposits, if any, the said application would be processed in accordance with law.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) September 1, 2025 Shubham Arya