# Dilip Charan Wahal & Anr v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 1433
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-04-16
- **Case number:** Writ -C No. 3400 of 2024
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dilip-charan-wahal-anr-v-u-o-i-ors-51701
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Cantonment Act, 2006-A lease deed was
executed on behalf of the Central Government -
for a period of 30 years-renewable up to 90
years-petitioners
are
in
actual
physical
possession-CLA Rules of 2021 have replaced the
CLA Rules of 1937-all subsisting leases given
under Cantonment Codes of 1989 and 1912 and
Cantonment Land Administration Rules 1925
and 1937, shall continue to be governed under
the said Rules - CLA Rules of 2021 not
applicable - as their lease was admittedly
subsisting till 24.10.1923-petitioners were given
a calculation sheet-which clearly specifies that
Standard Table Rent -fixation of such rent per
sq. mts. per annum is not arbitrary. No ground
for interference.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Dilip Charan Wahal & Anr. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1433
filing the time barred appeal, the
petitioner did not comply with this
provision.

18.
In
Basawaraj
v.
Land
Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -

"12. It is a settled legal proposition
that law of limitation may harshly affect a
particular party but it has to be applied
with all its rigour when the statute so
prescribes. The court has no power to
extend the period of limitation on
equitable grounds. "A result flowing from
a statutory provision is never an evil. A
court has no power to ignore that
provision to relieve what it considers a
distress resulting from its operation." The
statutory provision may cause hardship
or inconvenience to a particular party but
the court has no choice but to enforce it
giving full effect to the same. The legal
maxim dura lex sed lex which means "the
law is hard but it is the law", stands
attracted in such a situation. It has
consistently
been
held
that,
"inconvenience is not" a decisive factor
to be considered while interpreting a
statute"

19. Keeping in view the entire facts
and circumstances of the case, it appears that
the petitioner has not complied with the
mandate of Rule 7 C of the Employees
Provident
Fund
Appellate
Tribunal
(Procedure) Rules, 1997 on two counts - (1)
he did not file the appeal in the prescribed
period of limitation or even in the extended
period granted by this Court and (2) he did
not deposit 75% of the amount due from him
as determined under Section 7-A. Therefore,
there appears to be no good ground for again
extending the period of limitation for filing
the appeal by the petitioner.
20. The writ petition lacks merit
and the same is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1433
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ -C No. 3400 of 2024

Dilip Charan Wahal & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Samarth Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sanjeev Singh

Cantonment Act, 2006-A lease deed was
executed on behalf of the Central Government -
for a period of 30 years-renewable up to 90
years-petitioners
are
in
actual
physical
possession-CLA Rules of 2021 have replaced the
CLA Rules of 1937-all subsisting leases given
under Cantonment Codes of 1989 and 1912 and
Cantonment Land Administration Rules 1925
and 1937, shall continue to be governed under
the said Rules - CLA Rules of 2021 not
applicable - as their lease was admittedly
subsisting till 24.10.1923-petitioners were given
a calculation sheet-which clearly specifies that
Standard Table Rent -fixation of such rent per
sq. mts. per annum is not arbitrary. No ground
for interference.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Vishnu Traders Versus State of Haryana:
(1995) Supp SCC 461

2. Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC
651 (77)
1434 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3. Fruit Commission Agents Assn. v. Govt. of
A.P., (2007) 8 SCC

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra J.
&
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners, Shri S.B. Pandey, learned
D.S.G.I. assisted by Shri Raj Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 &
3 and Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel
for respondent No.2.

2. This petition has been filed with
the following prayers:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned
demand
notices
dated
08.12.2023 (ΑΝΝΕXXURE NO 2) and
19.02.2024 (Annexure No.3) issued by the
Defence
Estates
Officer,
Lucknow
Circle,Lucknow to the extent, it seeks to
recover an amount of Rs. 91,63,857/- from
the petitioners in respect of an area of 3.36
acres, situated over Survey No. 93/2 Cator
House 236 M.G. Road Lucknow Cant.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari 'summoning and
quashing the minutes of the meeting of the
Cantonment
Board,
Lucknow
dated
25.09.2023 in so far as it increases the
Standard Table of Rent (STR) of Zone-l, to
Rs. 566.70/- per sq. meter w.e.f. 01.07.2023
to 01.07.2024.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus declaring
Clause-B(a)(iii)
of
the
Policy
dated
10.03.2017 as extended till 31.12.2024, in
so far as it directs recovery of lease rent on
the basis of Standard Table of Rent (STR)
prevailing on the date of expiry of lease as
ultra vires to the provisions of Rule-16 r/w
rule 28 and also Schedule VIII of the
Cantonment Land Administration Rules,
1937 and Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.
(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature mandamus directing the
respondents not to take any coercive
measures
against
the
petitioners
in
pursuance to the impugned demand notices
dated 08.12.2023 and 19.02.2024 issued by
the Defence Estates Officer, Lucknow
Circle, Lucknow and further direct the
respondents to accept the lease rent in
respect of Survey No. 93/2 Cator House
236 M.G. Road Lucknow Cant. from the
petitioner at the rate of Rs. 50/- per
annum."

3. The learned Counsel for the
petitioners has submitted that a lease deed
was executed on behalf of the Central
Government on 15.05.1934 in respect of a
premises described as 'Cator House, 236,
M.G. Road, Lucknow Cantonment' in
favour of Shri Shiv Charan, for a period of
30 years with effect from 25.10.1933,
which was renewable up to 90 years. The
said property has been mentioned at Survey
No.93/2 and comprises of buildings known
as Cater house and Shiv Kutir. The
petitioners are in actual physical possession
of Shiv Kutir and are residing therein and
they are in de-jure possession of the rest of
the property (Cater House) which is in
occupation of the respondents, as it was let
out to the Governor General in Council by
Smt. Lalto Devi, wife of Shri Shiv Charan
at a monthly rent of Rs.220/- by a lease
deed dated 21.11.1941. The entire demised
premises measures 13,597.44 Sq. Mts. On
10.03.2017,
the
Central
Government
framed a policy providing for an extension
of expired/expiring leases and in pursuance
of such policy, the lease of the demised
premises was extended initially up to
4 All. Dilip Charan Wahal & Anr. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1435
31.12.2019 and thereafter it was again
extended on 15.02.2021 up to 31.12.2021
or till finalization of a new policy,
whichever is earlier. The policy dated
10.03.2017 was further extended beyond
31.12.2022 for one year i.e. till 31.12.2023
or till finalization of a new policy,
whichever is earlier. The lease dated
15.05.1934 in favour of the predecessors of
the petitioners, had expired on 24.10.2023
and in pursuance of the policy dated
10.03.2017
issued
by
the
Central
Government as extended from time to time,
the petitioners have been allowed to occupy
the demised premises till date.

4. The Cantonment Act 1924,
under which the initial lease deed was
executed, has been repealed by the
Cantonment Act 2006. Section 125 of the
Act of 2006 empowers the Central
Government to make rules to provide for
conditions on which properties vested in a
Cantonment Board may be transferred by
sale, mortgage, lease or exchange. Under
Section 63 of the Act of 2006, the Board
has to manage any property entrusted to its
management by the Central Government,
subject to the rules made by the Central
Government under Section 346 of the Act
of 2006. In exercise of powers conferred by
the Section 280 of the now repealed Act of
1924, the Central Government had framed
Rules
known
as
Cantonment
Land
Administration Rules, 1937 (hereinafter
referred to as CLA Rules 1937). After the
said Act
was
repealed,
the
Central
Government in exercise of its powers under
Section 346 of the Act of 2006 framed the
Cantonment Land Administration Rules
2021 (hereinafter referred to as CLA Rules
of 2021). Under Rules 17 of the CLA Rules
of 2021, it has been provided that
subsisting Cantonment leases given under
earlier Act shall continue to be governed
under the said Rules and conditions of the
lease deed. The subsisting lease with
renewal terms can be considered for
renewal or otherwise, in accordance with
the instructions issued by the Central
government from time to time, including
such instructions as pertain to submissions
of on-line application for renewal of lease
as well as processing thereof, and the
renewal of lease deed shall be executed on
the proforma given in Schedule IV.

5. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner has also submittd that the CLA
Rules of 2021 have been issued in
supersession of the CLA Rules of 1937, but
these Rules of 2021 do not govern those
subsisting leases which had been in
operation under the CLA Rules of 1937 and
because the lease deed of the disputed
property was subsisting and in operation at
the time when CLA Rules of 2021 came
into force, the CLA Rules of 1937 are
applicable with respect to the disputed
property. Rule 6 of CLA Rules of 1937
defines Class B-3 land as that land which
has been held by any private person under
the provisions of CLA Rules of 1937 or
may be presumed to be held under the
provisions of Cantonment Board Act 1899
or 1912 or under any executive order
previously in force, subject to conditions
under which the Central Government has
reserved to themselves the propriety rights
in the soil. Rule 9 of CLA Rules of 1937
vests the management of all category 'B'
lands with the Military Estates Officer, now
called the Defence Estates Officer. Under
Rule 8 of CLA Rules of 1937, the Standard
Table of Rent has to be prepared by the
respondent No.3 - the Defence Estates
Officer in consultation with the Collector
which is suitable for application on lands
held for agricultural and non-agricultural
purpose having regard to situation of site in
1436 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Cantonment, nature of soil and rates
charged for adjacent agricultural lands or
building sites in the neighborhood.

6. It has further been submitted
that since a number of leases were granted
under the CLA Rules of 1937 which had
either expired or were expiring, therefore,
the Government of India issued a policy
vide its order dated 10.03.2017 which has
been referred to herein above, by which all
the leases under the CLA Rules of 1937,
whose full term had expired or was
expiring before 21.12.2018, were extended.
The last such extension of lease was made
by a letter dated 30.01.2024. It is the case
of the petitioners that their lease had
expired on 24.10.2023 lastly, but they
continued to be in possession of the
property in question and are using it for
residential purposes. The respondent No.3
by a letter dated 08.12.2023, had issued a
demand notice to the petitioners demanding
rent at the rate of Rs.77,05,669/- per
annum. Another demand notice had been
issued on 19.02.2024 in pursuance of
interim policy dated 30.01.2024 demanding
a total of Rs.91,63,857/- to be paid within a
period of 90 days for the purpose of
processing the issue of execution of the
lease deed up to 31.12.2024, failing which
the petitioners would be deemed to be unauthorized occupants of the land in
question and would be liable for eviction
under the provisions of Public Premises
(Eviction of Un-authorized Occupant) Act
1971. Upon payment of the amount
demanded by the impugned demand notice
dated 19.02.2024, the petitioners would
only be entitled to an extension of the lease
up to 31.12.2024.

7. It has been argued that since
extension of the lease has been granted
under the policy notified on 10.03.2017, it
is not a renewal of lease as contemplated
under the CLA Rules of 1937 and that as
per the provisions of Rule 16 of the CLA
Rules of 1937, the annual lease rent fixed
under Rule 19 can be revised only at the
time of renewal of the lease and not while
extending the lease, as the terms of the
lease can be modified only on renewal of
lease.

8. The learned counsel for the
petitioners has submitted that the Standard
Table of Rents which has been prepared by
the respondent No.3 has been purportedly
prepared on the basis of the circle rate fixed
by the District Magistrate which was
applicable on the date of expiry of the
lease. Since the respondents are only
extending the terms of the expired lease up
to 31.12.2024, there cannot be any change
in the terms and conditions of the original
lease and that any extension of the lease
has to be on the same terms and conditions
as the original lease and the lease rent
cannot be increased exorbitantly by the
respondents at the time of extension of the
lease.

9. It has also been argued that as
per the minutes of the meeting dated
25.09.2023 of the Board regarding fixation
of Standard Table of Rents, the Standard
Table
Rent
(S.T.R.)
was
fixed
at
Rs.566.70/- per square meters in an
arbitrary manner on the basis of prevailing
rates of the adjoining municipal lands. Such
prevailing rates relate to sale deeds
executed
of
properties
adjoining
the
Cantonment Board under the control of
Municipal Corporation of Lucknow. In case
of the petitioners, only lease-hold rights are
being given by the respondent No.3 Circle
Rates have been taken into consideration to
determine the market value of those lands
which are subject matter of sale deeds by
4 All. Dilip Charan Wahal & Anr. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1437
private citizens. The circle rates cannot be
made applicable for determining the annual
lease rent in respect of leases granted by
the Cantonment Board/ Defence Estates
Officer where no ownership rights are
being granted to the lessee. Therefore, the
Moolya Nirdharan Suchi prepared by the
Collector, Lucknow in respect of adjoining
areas cannot be relied upon.

10. The learned counsel for the
petitioners has also submitted that that the
impugned notices dated 08.12.2023 and
19.02.2024 are arbitrary and liable to be
quashed for the reason that the rent of the
premises has been increased exorbitantly
from Rs.50/- per annum to Rs.77,05,669/-
per anuum even for limited lease holds
rights as are being extended up to
31.12.2024
and
the
Cantonment
Board/Defence
Estates
Officer
being
instrumentality of State, which is the
Welfare State, cannot act arbitrarily and
contrary to the principles enshrined under
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

11. It has also been argued that
similar petitions have been filed before the
Delhi High Court which have been
entertained and the Court had issued
interim directions that during pendency of
the petitions, no coercive action can be
taken against the lessees therein. Similarly,
this Court has passed an interim order dated
27.10.2021 in Writ-C No.27621 of 2021
(Onkar Prasad Bhardwaj Vs. Union of
India and 3 Others) directing that no
coercive action be taken against the lessees
therein as long as they continue to pay old
rent. Similar order has also been passed by
this Court at Allahabad on 13.10.2023 in
Writ-C No.34544 of 2023 (Smt. Vinita
Bahuguna Vs. Union of India and 2
Others). It has been argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that since this
Court has granted interim orders in similar
petitions pending at Allahabad, parity of
such interim order be also be granted to the
writ petitioners.

12. Shri S.B. Pandey, learned
Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the
respondent Nos.1 & 3 has stated that this
Court may finally consider and dispose of
this writ petition on the basis of arguments
raised by the parties and he does not
propose to file a counter affidavit.

13. In Vishnu Traders Versus
State of Haryana: (1995) Supp SCC 461,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "In
the
matters
of
interlocutory
orders,
principle of binding precedents cannot be
said to apply. However, the need for
consistency of approach and uniformity in
the
exercise
of
judicial
discretion
respecting
similar
causes
and
the
desirability to eliminate occasions for
grievances of discriminatory treatment
requires that all similar matters should
receive similar treatment except where
factual differences require a different
treatment so that there is assurance of
consistency, uniformity, predictability and
certainty of judicial approach." However,
the aforesaid principles would not apply
where the earlier writ petitions are pending
and the present Writ Petition is being
decided finally.

14. Shri S.B. Pandey has submitted
that admittedly, the lease of the petitioners
had expired way back on 23.10.2023 as the
initial lease was granted on 25.10.1933 for
a maximum period of 90 years. The
extension of the period of lease has been
done on the basis of policy dated
10.03.2017. The petitioners having derived
advantage on the basis of the policy dated
10.03.2017
cannot
turn
around
and
1438 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
challenge such conditions of the policy
which according to them cause undue
hardship. They have to accept the policy in
its entirety or forgo the benefits of the
policy as a whole.

15. The scope of interference by this
Court in exercise of its powers under Article
226 of the Constitution of India in the matters
involving challenge to any State policy, is
limited to examining whether the policy
suffers from Wednesbury unreasonableness.

16. In Tata Cellular v. Union of
India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 (77), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held: -

"77. ...Shortly put, the grounds
upon which an administrative action is
subject to control by judicial review can be
classified as under:
(i) Illegality : This means the
decision-maker must understand correctly
the law that regulates his decision-making
power and must give effect to it.
(ii)
Irrationality,
namely,
Wednesbury unreasonableness.
(iii) Procedural impropriety.
The above are only the broad
grounds but it does not rule out addition of
further grounds in course of time."

17. In Fruit Commission Agents
Assn. v. Govt. of A.P., (2007) 8 SCC 511,
it was held that: -

"14. Fixation of
rent
is
an
administrative function and the court
cannot sit as a court of appeal over
administrative
decisions
vide Tata
Cellular v. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC
651]. Hence the view taken by the High
Court is correct.
15. As we have held in S. C.
Chandra v. State of Jharkhand [(2007) 8
SCC 279] the judiciary should exercise
restraint
and
should
not
ordinarily
encroach into the legislative or executive
domain. In our opinion fixing of the rent
is an executive function and hence the
judiciary cannot interfere with the same
except on Wednesbury principles. There is
broad separation of powers under the
Constitution and ordinarily one organ of
the State should not encroach into the
domain of another. Montesquieu's theory
of separation of powers (XIth Chapter of
his book The Spirit of Laws) broadly
applies in India too."
(Emphasis added)

18.

Having
considered
the
arguments raised by the learned counsel for
the parties, this Court has gone through the
relevant CLA Rules of 1937 and of 2021.
In the CLA Rules of 2021, which have
replaced the CLA Rules of 1937, it has
been mentioned that all subsisting leases
given under Cantonment Codes of 1989
and
1912
and
Cantonment
Land
Administration Rules 1925 and 1937, shall
continue to be governed under the said
Rules and the conditions of the lease deed.
Therefore, in so far as the applicability of
CLA Rules of 2021 are concerned, they
may not be applicable to the case of the
petitioners as their lease was admittedly
subsisting till 24.10.1923. However, the
Rules of 1937 which have been relied upon
by the learned counsel for the petitioners
themselves say that all leases shall be
governed by the Standard Table of Rents to
be prepared by the Military Estates Officer/
Defence Estates Officer. The Standard
Table of Rents has to be prepared in
consultation with the Collector and shall be
compiled taking into account the situation
of the site, the nature of the soil and the
rates charged for adjacent agricultural land
or for building sites in the neighborhood.
4 All. Dilip Charan Wahal & Anr. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1439
19. We have gone through the
Resolution of the Board as recorded in the
Minutes of the meeting of the Board, a
copy of which has been filed as Annexure
No.14 to the writ petition. The said meeting
was attended by a representative of
Collector Lucknow, representative of Nagar
Nigam Lucknow, representative of Defence
Estates Officer, Lucknow Circle, Lucknow
Cantt representative of Head Quarters
Madhya U.P. Sub-area Lucknow Cantt and
representative of Chief Executive Officer
Lucknow Cantt and it was pointed out that
Lucknow being the biggest city of U.P.
with
an
increasing
population
and
advantageous and healthy environment and
being the hub of commercial activities, the
land values have increased exponentially.
The Cantonment land is perhaps the best
located in Lucknow city with well
connected roads and amenities. It can be
assessed on the valuation based on sales
data/ Moolyankan Soochi, site survey and
other relevant information gathered in this
regard. Since Cantonment land belongs to
the Government of India, Ministry of
Defence and no part of it can be sold to
anyone, hence no sales data was available
to decide the fair market value of land but
rates/value of land situated in the vicinity
of Cantt area as assessed by the Collector
are mentioned in the Moolyankan Soochi
issued by the Collector, Lucknow and it can
be taken into account. The Standard Table
of Rents was last revised in July, 2022 and
was valid till 30.06.2023 and it had now to
be re-fixed/revised for the years 20232024.

20. To arrive at a realistic value of
land in the Cantonment, it has been divided
into four zones and one subsidiary zone.
The disputed property in this writ petition
falls in Zone-I. This Zone comprises of
Restaurants, Banks, Post Office, Hospitals
and Commercial areas with wide roads. It
is adjacent to the Railway Station and such
localities
of
Lucknow
Municipal
Corporation
as
Mall
Avenue, Abadi
Kabristan and Vikramaditya Marg, which
are some of the most posh areas of the
Lucknow city. The Collector in the Circle
Rate notified on 15.12.2015 had notified
Mall Avenue at Rs.21,500/- per sq. mts.,
Abadi Kabristan at Rs.16,500/- per sq. mts.
and Vikramaditya Marg at Rs.30,000/- per
square meter. The average rate of all such
localities was calculated at Rs.22,666.66/-
per sq. mt. The average cost of land being
so determined for this Zone-I, the Standard
Table Rent for Zone-I for residential areas
was taken on that basis as 2.5% of the
market value of such land. It was fixed at
Rs.566.70/- per sq. mts. The petitioners'
property is undoubtedly residential and,
therefore, 2.5% of Rs.22,667/- came out to
be Rs.566.70/- per sq. mts.

21. The CLA Rules of 1937 and
that of 2021 all refer to grant and renewal
of leases on the basis of instructions issued
by the Central Government from time to
time. The Central Government had issued a
policy on 10.03.2017 laying down the
conditions for extension of leases till a new
policy is finalized. The petitioners have
taken benefit of this policy and their lease
which admittedly expired on 24.10.2023,
had been extended up to 31.12.2023 i.e for
a period of 69 days on the basis of Standard
Table of Rents. Rs.14,56,688/- has been
demanded as outstanding dues in the
Notice issued in December, 2023. The
petitioners were given a calculation sheet
which is enclosed with the Notice dated
08.12.2023 which clearly specifies that
Standard Table Rent rate at the rate of
Rs.566.70/- per sq. mts. having been
determined, the rent of Rs.13,597.4400/-
sq. mts. would be Rs.17,05,669/- per
1440 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
annum and consequently for 69 days,
Rs.14,56,688/- only has been demanded.

22. It is clear from the demand
notice dated 08.12.2023 that Rs.566.70/- per
sq. mts. per annum has been determined as
rent for the lease hold property which falls in
Zone-I. This Court does not find fixation of
such rent per sq. mts. per annum as arbitrary,
looking into the area where the property is
situated which is M. G. Road, the main
lifeline of the city of Lucknow. The
petitioners do not dispute that the property
falls in Zone-I. The petitioners also do not
dispute that the Circle Rate has only been
taken as a determinative factor for market
value of land of the area adjacent to land
under
the
administration
of
Lucknow
Municipal Corporation and it is not the
market value which is being demanded but
only 2.5% of such market value has been
demanded for lease hold rights to be
granted/extended for a period of one year.

23. The lease rent fixed by a
Resolution passed in a Minutes of the
meeting of the Board which was attended
by a representative of Collector Lucknow,
representative of Nagar Nigam Lucknow,
representative of Defence Estates Officer,
Lucknow
Circle,
Lucknow
Cantt
representative of Head Quarters Madhya
U.P.
Sub-area
Lucknow
Cantt
and
representative of Chief Executive Officer
Lucknow
Cantt,
after
taking
into
consideration the location of the land, the
connectivity and the amenities available
nearby, thereafter fixing 2.5% of the
average circle rate of lands situated nearby
which was assessed in the year 2015, does
not at all appear to be arbitrary or
unreasonable.

24. The CLA Rules of 1937 and
that of 2021 all refer to grant and renewal
of leases on the basis of instructions issued
by the Central Government from time to
time. The Central Government had issued a
policy on 10.03.2017 laying down the
conditions for extension of leases till a new
policy is finalized. The petitioners have
taken benefit of this policy and their lease
which admittedly expired on 24.10.2023,
had been extended up to 31.12.2023 i.e for
a period of 69 days on the basis of Standard
Table of Rents. Rs.14,56,688/- has been
demanded as outstanding dues in the
Notice issued in December, 2023. The
petitioners were given a calculation sheet
which is enclosed with the Notice dated
08.12.2023 which clearly specifies that
Standard Table Rent rate at the rate of
Rs.566.70/- per sq. mts. having been
determined, the rent of Rs.13,597.4400/-
sq. mts. would be Rs.17,05,669/- per
annum and consequently for 69 days,
Rs.14,56,688/- only has been demanded.

25. This Court is also of the
considered opinion that Article 14 of the
Constitution of India which has been
invoked by the learned counsel for the
petitioners without explaining as to how the
same would apply in their case, would not
be
applicable
as
the
decision
for
determining the annual rent cannot be said
to be arbitrary for such a huge piece of land
situated in Zone-I as is being enjoyed by
the petitioners.

26. Moreover, admittedly the lease
of the petitioners expired on 24.10.2023,
they have continued to enjoy the property
only because of policy of extension as
notified on 10.03.2017 by the Central
Government. It was for the Central
Government to decide the conditions for
extension of an already expired leases. If
the petitioners are not willing to deposit the
lease rent as determined by the impugned
4 All. Vinod Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1441
demand notices, they are free to vacate the
property as they have not been forced to get
their lease extended. They have voluntarily
remained in the property on the basis of
extension of lease as aforesaid on the basis
of conditions mentioned therein. The
Central Government being the lessor has
determined the value for the land it owns in
the Lucknow Cantonment in Zone-I and it
has offered that land on lease on conditions
determined by it on the basis of market
value of adjoining land in the city. The
petitioners being lessees are free to accept
or reject the offer but they cannot place
conditions on such offer to their liking only
on the basis of alleged undue hardship
being faced by them.

27. This Court finds no good
ground to invoke the concept of Welfare
State and Article 14 of the Constitution of
India in such a matter where the dispute
between
the
petitioners
and
the
Government is regarding fixation of lease
rent of 1,46,362 sq. feet land regarding
which the 90 years lease of the petitioners
has come to an end and the Government
has fixed the new rate of lease rent on
relevant considerations, which do not suffer
from wednesbury unreasonableness. On the
contrary, continuance or extension of lease
of Government lands at the old rates of
lease rent fixed more than 90 years ago
would be against the interest of the public
at large and that would be arbitrary and
unreasonable.

28. In view of the observations
made herein above, we find no good
ground to entertain this petition. Hence, the
instant writ petition is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1441
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

Writ-C No. 5832 of 2024

Vinod Kumari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jeet Bahadur Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Authority rejected the application of the
petitioner- seeking interest on the delayed
payment of the refund of stamp duty - order for
refund was passed on September 19, 2013authority concerned refunded this amount only
on December 5, 2023- State has no power to
hold on the money -it has taken without any
authority of law -amount that has been collected
is dehors the law.

Writ Petition disposed. (E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel
for the State

2. This is a writ petitioner under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
wherein the order dated January 24, 2024
passed
by
the
Additional
District
Magistrate (Finance/Revenue), Aligarh is
under challenge.

3. By the order impugned, the
authority concerned rejected the application
of the petitioner seeking interest on the
delayed payment of the refund of stamp duty
that has been deposited by the petitioner.

4. On perusal of the facts, it is
clear that the order for refund of the