Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

Supreme Court Denounces "Covert Method" in Nazul Land Conversion, Upholds Nullification of 20-Year-Old Freehold Deed

02 September 2024 11:47 AM

By: sayum


Supreme Court criticizes state for "arbitrary and non-transparent" actions, dismisses appeals in high-profile Lucknow land dispute. The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals filed by City Montessori School (CMS) and others regarding the conversion of a Nazul plot in Lucknow from leasehold to freehold. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih, affirmed the Allahabad High Court's decision that the conversion was conducted in a manner that was arbitrary and violative of constitutional principles. The Court emphasized that state largesse must be distributed through a transparent and non-discriminatory process.

The dispute centers around a plot located in Maha Nagar, Lucknow, originally leased by the Uttar Pradesh government in 1961. The leasehold interest was later transferred to M.M. Batra, who then engaged in a legal battle over the property for several decades. In 1995, the plot was auctioned, with CMS emerging as the highest bidder. However, due to procedural discrepancies, the state government canceled CMS's bid and subsequently converted the plot to freehold in favor of Batra at a fraction of the auction price. This led to CMS challenging the legality of the conversion and the subsequent sale deed in the Allahabad High Court, which ruled in their favor.

The Supreme Court reiterated the legal position that state largesse, such as land allotments, must be granted based on a sound, transparent, and well-defined policy. Citing the precedent set in Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court observed, "The distribution of largesse by the State and its instrumentalities should always be done in a fair and equitable manner. The element of favoritism or nepotism shall not influence the exercise of discretion"​.

The Court highlighted the procedural flaws in the conversion of the leasehold property to freehold. The amount paid for conversion by Batra was significantly less than 10% of CMS's bid, offered 16 years prior. "This cannot be a fair and transparent process of transferring the State's ownership rights," the bench stated, underscoring the requirement for transparency and fairness in such transactions​.

The judgment criticized the state government's actions during the pending litigation, particularly the suppression of relevant facts from the Allahabad High Court during the appeal process. The Court noted that the conversion order was a "covert method of defeating the High Court's interim order" and emphasized that the state and its agencies must respect judicial processes​.

The Supreme Court concluded that while CMS's bid was wrongfully canceled, restoring the bid after more than 20 years would be unjust given the significant rise in property values. The Court therefore upheld the Allahabad High Court's ruling, setting aside the conversion deed in favor of Batra but leaving open the question of whether the plot should be auctioned afresh under current laws.

Justice Oka remarked, "Selling the plot to its alleged lessee at a nominal price will not be a fair and transparent method at all. It will be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India"​.

The Supreme Court's decision reinforces the necessity for transparency and adherence to legal principles in state transactions, particularly in cases involving public property. The judgment also sends a clear message about the importance of judicial oversight in preventing arbitrary state actions. Both CMS and the alleged lessee have the option to seek refunds for the amounts paid, but the ultimate fate of the plot will depend on future legal and governmental actions.

Date of Decision: August 2, 2024.

City Montessori School vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Latest Legal News