# Kalyan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 794
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-18
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 31219 of 2024
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta, Anish Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kalyan-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53238
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226 - Refund of registration money
- YEIDA advertised scheme for allotment
of
residential
plots
-
Scheme
contemplated reservation of 17.5% of
total
plots
for
persons
whose
land
acquired/purchased
for
planned
development - Earlier, land of father of
petitioner acquired but he died before
launch of scheme, petitioner applied
under 'farmers category' - Submitted
online application alongwith registration
money, accepted, included in draw of lots
- Held, petitioner was interested in
3 All. Kalyan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
795
making payment of allotment money, for
obtaining lease deed, requested to issue
notice to his two brothers, who were not
ready to sign on no objection certificate -
No action was taken by YEIDA, petitioner
applied for return of registration money -
Not a case of surrender as given under
Clauses 18(iv) and 18(v) of brochure -
Petitioner
requested
to
return
of
registration money, in view of condition
not provided in brochure but imposed
subsequently
i.e.,
ten
months
after
issuance of allotment letter - In absence
of any condition in brochure, petitioner
cannot
be
suffer
by
forfeiture
of
registration money - Impugned order
quashed. (Para 2, 4, 13 to 15)

Writ petition allowed. (E-13)

## Text

794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
9. A perusal of the order dated
7.12.2012 would demonstrate that no
material has been relied in the impugned
order to demonstrate as to how the
petitioner is a threat to public peace and
tranquility. It is a settled law that mere
pendency of a criminal case cannot ipso
facto amount to cancellation of the arms
licence. It is also settled law that unless the
individual is convicted, he is deemed to be
innocent. Therefore, it is imperative on the
part of the District Magistrate to record a
specific finding. No material has been
relied upon by the District Magistrate. Only
the report of the SSP dated 29.11.2010 has
been relied upon, which contains the details
of criminal case. Neither it has been
demonstrated before this Court that the
petitioner has in any manner misuse his
firearm and till date there is no conviction
against the petitioner.

10. It is to be noted that in the
similar circumstances the another arms
licence of the petitioner has already been
restored by order dated 23.7.2013 in Writ
C-No.32621 of 2012, which has not been
challenged.

11. Since the circumstances in the
present case and the aforesaid writ petition
were similar and the learned Standing
Counsel could not show any material
before this Court to demonstrate that the
petitioner is a threat to public peace and
tranquility. Mere pendency of a criminal
case in which there is no allegation that the
petitioner has misused the firearm, it cannot
be said that the petitioner is a threat to
public peace and tranquility.

12. Accordingly, the impugned
order dated 12.4.2018 passed by respondent
no.2, order dated 7.9.2027 passed by
respondent no.2 and orders dated 7.12.2012
and 30.8.2013 are hereby quashed. The writ
petition is allowed. The District Magistrate
concerned is hereby directed to restore the
firearm licence of the petitioner within a
period of 30 days from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order.
While restoring the firearm licence of the
petitioner, the District Magistrate would be
at liberty at the time of renewal of arms
licence to decide whether the renewal can
be granted on account of events after
passing of the order dated 7.12.2012.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 794
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ C No. 31219 of 2024

Kalyan Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dilip Kumar Goswami, Himanshu Pandey, Sunil
Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226 - Refund of registration money
- YEIDA advertised scheme for allotment
of
residential
plots
-
Scheme
contemplated reservation of 17.5% of
total
plots
for
persons
whose
land
acquired/purchased
for
planned
development - Earlier, land of father of
petitioner acquired but he died before
launch of scheme, petitioner applied
under 'farmers category' - Submitted
online application alongwith registration
money, accepted, included in draw of lots
- Held, petitioner was interested in
3 All. Kalyan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
795
making payment of allotment money, for
obtaining lease deed, requested to issue
notice to his two brothers, who were not
ready to sign on no objection certificate -
No action was taken by YEIDA, petitioner
applied for return of registration money -
Not a case of surrender as given under
Clauses 18(iv) and 18(v) of brochure -
Petitioner
requested
to
return
of
registration money, in view of condition
not provided in brochure but imposed
subsequently
i.e.,
ten
months
after
issuance of allotment letter - In absence
of any condition in brochure, petitioner
cannot
be
suffer
by
forfeiture
of
registration money - Impugned order
quashed. (Para 2, 4, 13 to 15)

Writ petition allowed. (E-13)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,
J. & Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)

1. By means of the instant petition
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,
the petitioner has challenged the order
dated 04.04.2024 passed by respondent
no.2,
Yamuna
Expressway
Industrial
Development
Authority
(for
short
'YEIDA'), forfeiting the allotment money
of Rs.3,98,520/- in respect of Plot No.104,
Block-E, Sector-16, area 162 sq. mtrs.
allotted in favour of the petitioner under the
'farmers category'.

Background Facts:

2. The facts in brief are that
YEIDA acquired, inter alia, Khasra no.531
area 1.2840 hectare belonging to Jagpal
Singh, father of the petitioner. The
compensation for the acquired land was
duly paid to the father of the petitioner. The
father of the petitioner died on 21.03.2017
leaving behind widow Smt. Nirmala, two
married daughters and five sons including
the
petitioner
herein.
The
YEIDA
advertised a scheme in the year 2023 for
allotment of residential plots of different
sizes. The scheme contemplated reservation
of 17.5% of the total plots for persons
whose land had been acquired/purchased
by YEIDA for planned development or for
constructions of Jewar Airport. As the land
of the father of the petitioner was also
acquired
by
YEIDA
for
planned
development but he had died on 21.03.2017
before launch of scheme on 08.08.2023,
therefore, the petitioner claiming right
through him, applied for allotment under
the
'farmers
category'.
Clause
15D
prescribes eligibility for allotment under
this category and the same is extracted
below:

"D.
Eligible
Farmers
whose
land
has
been
acquired/purchased by YEIDA or
in Jewar Airport.
The
detailed
eligibility
conditions and the procedure for
allotment under this category are
enumerated as follows:
(i) Only those farmers are
eligible to apply under this scheme,
whose
land
has
been
acquired/purchased
and
unhindered/without encroachment
possession has been taken by
YAMUNA
EXPRESSWAY
INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY or in Jewar Airport
before closing date of this scheme.
(Undertaking-l on Stamp Paper of
Rs. 100/- is to be given by the
applicant farmer as per Performa
given in the Brochure)
(ii) In case a land owner
has been already allotted residential
plot/ built up flats in his/her name
or
his/her
spouse/dependent
children, in any of the residential
796 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
schemes of the Authority, he/she
shall not be eligible to apply under
this scheme.
(iii) The applicant farmer
should
have
received
the
compensation of his/her acquired
land on or before closing date of
this scheme. Those farmers who
have encroachment on any acquired
land of authority or have filed any
writ/suit against authority are not
eligible
for
allotment
in
this
scheme.
(iv) In case there is more
than one joint-khatedar, all joint
khatedar can apply under this
scheme. Draw between all such
eligible joint khatedar of a khata
shall be made and one successful
applicant, out of all joint-khatedars,
shall be selected and will be
included in the final draw of lots.
(v) Under this category,
successful applicant/allottee cannot
transfer the allotted plot up to five
years from the date of allotment.
(vi)
No
encroachment
should have been done by the
applicant
on
land
acquired/purchased
by
Yamuna
Authority irrespective of acquired
land or any other land against
which the application for allotment
is being made in this Scheme. A
declaration to this effect shall have
to be given on Stamp Paper of Rs.
100/- by the applicant farmer as per
Performa given in the application
form (Undertaking-II).

(vii) The applicant has
received entire compensation of the
land
acquired
without
any
contest/litigation. The applicant has
to submit Form-11/certified Benana
Copy issued by the Competent
Authority with the application.
(viii) The applicant farmer
and all Khatedars, shall submit an
affidavit stating that they shall not
file a legal case in any court for
enhancement of compensation or
claim of additional land.
(ix) If, on verification or at
any stage it is found that there is a
violation of any of the above
mentioned conditions then the
application will be rejected and
registration money will be refunded
without any interest.
(x) If under this category
the applicants are less than the
number of plots reserved, then the
leftover plots shall be included in
the draw for general category."

3. The procedure for submitting
application by online mode was, inter alia,
as follows:

"16. PROCEDURE TO
APPLY
(i) The application can be
Only submitted online on the
website of the Yamuna authority
i.e.
www.yamunaexpresswayauthority.
com through payment gateway/net
banking.
(ii) The application form
can be collected on payment of Rs.
500/-+18% GST from online on the
website of the Yamuna authority
i.e.
www.yamunaexpresswayauthority.
com through payment gateway net
banking.
(iii) The application form
duly completed and signed along
with
the
required
registration
3 All. Kalyan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
797
money
and
all
the
required
annexures shall be submitted to
online
i.e.
www.yamunaexpresswayauthority.
com through net banking on the
page of this brochure on any
working day during the period
between the date of opening and
the date of closure of this scheme.
(iv) If the application is
incomplete
in
any
respect
whatsoever or if any column is left
blank or if the photo is not pasted at
the designated place or mentioning
an incomplete or untrue address or
no signature or thumb impression
found on the declaration or entered
wrong details in application form,
the
application
shall
not
be
considered at all."

4. In terms of the stipulations in
the scheme, the petitioner submitted online
application alongwith registration money of
Rs.3,98,520/-. The application was duly
accepted and was allocated distinct number.
It was included in the draw of lots in
which, the petitioner was successful and,
accordingly,
allotment
letter
dated
01.11.2023 was issued in favour of the
petitioner. It reveals that the petitioner was
allotted Plot no.104 of Block-E of Sector16 having an area of 162 sq. mtrs. Vide
letter dated 08.11.2023, the petitioner was
required to submit indemnity bonds on
affidavit of Rs.100 alongwith copy of Form
No.11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act to
establish that the land was acquired by
YEIDA and compensation was paid before
the closing of the Scheme and thus he was
eligible to apply under the 'farmers
category'.
The
petitioner,
accordingly,
submitted two indemnity bonds alongwith
copy of Form No.11. It is relevant to
mention that footnote to letter dated
08.11.2023 stipulated that where the
applicant had applied after death of original
tenure holder (farmer), the applicant shall
also file succession certificate and noobjection certificate from other heirs. It
seems that two brothers of the petitioner
namely, Rakesh Kumar and Amit Kumar
did not give no-objection to the petitioner.
Therefore,
the
petitioner
filed
a
representation
before
YEIDA
on
28.11.2023 bringing to its notice the said
fact and also requested it to issue notice to
his brothers and, in case, they do not file
any objection, to execute lease deed in
favour of the petitioner. On 05.12.2023, the
Manager (Property), YEIDA issued a letter
to the petitioner once again requiring him
to submit no objection certificate and
indemnity bonds on prescribed format and
Form No.11 to support the claim under the
'farmers category', by 31.12.2023, failing
which, the allotment would be cancelled.

5. At this stage, the petitioner
approached this Court seeking quashing of
the letter dated 05.12.2023 but the said
petition was got withdrawn with liberty to
pursue the grievance before the Authority.
Accordingly,
the
writ
petition
was
dismissed vide order dated 17.01.2024. The
petitioner,
thereafter,
again
made
representation
to
the
Authorities
on
21.02.2024 stating that while other brothers
have given no objection, his two brothers
are not ready to sign the no objection
certificate. The petitioner also stated that he
even offered the plot to his brothers but that
was also not accepted. Therefore, once
again he prayed for issuing notice to his
two brothers. However, when no action was
taken in the matter, the petitioner realizing
that he would not be able to furnish noobjection by his two brother, made
applications on 28.02.2024 and 15.03.2024
for refund of the allotment money. The
798 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application
of
the
petitioner
dated
28.02.2024 seeking refund of allotment
money has been rejected relying upon
Clause 18 (iv) of the brochure.

Submissions of counsel for the
petitioner:

6. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the impugned
order is wholly illegal and is a result of
arbitrary exercise of power. There was no
condition in the brochure to furnish no
objection certificate. The said condition
was introduced illegally for the first time
vide letter dated 08.11.2023. It is urged that
the respondents could not have introduced
any such condition after draw of lots. In
alternative, it has been submitted that the
said condition, even if valid, would not
bring the case of the petitioner under
Clause 18(iv) of the brochure. The said
clause would apply only to a case of
surrender and not to a case like the present
one. Even if the Authority was competent
to cancel the allotment, it should have
returned the allotment money and could not
have fortified the same.

Submission of counsel for the
respondent:

7. On the other hand, learned
counsel for YEIDA submitted, placing
reliance on the counter affidavit, that
although in the brochure there was no
specific condition for submitting noobjection but, under Clause 28, the Chief
Executive
Officer
was
competent
to
add/alter/modify the terms and conditions
of allotment and the additional condition
imposed by YEIDA was in exercise of the
said power. He submits that since, the
petitioner failed to submit no-objection
certificate, therefore, the Authority has
rightly proceeded under Clause 18(iv) of
the brochure. He further submits that the
petitioner in his application and affidavits
stated that he has received compensation
whereas the compensation was paid to his
father. According to the policy, only
original tenure holder (farmer) was entitled
to apply. As the petitioner had applied on
basis of rights claimed through his father,
therefore, he was rightly required to submit
no objection certificate from other heirs
and as he failed to submit no objection
certificate, therefore, the allotment money
has been rightly forfeited under Clause
18(iv) of the brochure.

Analysis:

8. Under Clause 15D, as already
noted, farmers whose land had been
acquired/purchased by YEIDA for planned
development or for Jewar Airport were
entitled to apply. The indemnity bond in
Form 1 was for verifying the claim that the
land was acquired/purchased by YEIDA.
Indemnity bond no.2 was in shape of a
declaration that the applicant was not in
illegal possession of any land of YEIDA or
Jewar Airport and would not cause any
hindrance in the development work. The
petitioner
had
given
undertaking
in
Proforma nos.1 and 2 as required and there
is no dispute about it. The petitioner in his
online application mentioned his name as
the applicant and also duly mentioned the
name of his father Jagpal Singh as the
farmer whose land was acquired.

9. Under Clause 16(iv), the
YEIDA was having power to decline to
consider any application, which was
incomplete in any respect or if any column
was left blank or any wrong fact was
mentioned therein. The YEIDA duly
accepted the application, allotted a unique
3 All. Kalyan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
799
number to it and also included it in the
draw of lots. Thus, it can safely be inferred
that the application was complete in all
respects.

10. Obviously, the purpose of
reservation in favour of farmers was to
rehabilitate them. In absence of any
specific bar in the brochure for heir of
original tenure holder to apply, the
eligibility of the petitioner to apply under
the said category cannot be doubted.
However, in the impugned order, there is an
observation that as per brochure, only
farmer whose land was acquired could have
applied, but in that event, sub-clause (ix) of
Clause 15D would apply, whereunder, at
the stage of verification of the eligibility, if
any violation is noticed, the application was
liable to rejection and the registration
money refunded without any interest.

11. The controversy can be
examined from another angle, which leads
to the same conclusion. The brochure is
completely silent as regards submission of
no-objection certificate. The said condition
was introduced for the first time vide letter
dated 08.11.2023 much after the petitioner
had deposited the registration money and
was declared successful in the draw of
lots. Apparently, the said condition was
introduced to avoid future disputes
between the heirs of the original land
holder
(farmer),
which
is
also
understandable but at the same time, if
the same would have been part of
brochure and known to the petitioner, he
may not have applied. So, while we find
no illegality or arbitrariness on part of
YEIDA in requiring the petitioner to
furnish no objection certificate from
other heirs, YEIDA also cannot be held
entitled to forfeit the entire application
money on the said ground.
12. Here, it is worthwhile to notice
that action purports to be taken under
Clause 18(v) but in the impugned order as
well as the counter affidavit reliance has
been placed on Clause 18(iv). Clauses
18(iv) and 18(v) are as follows:

"(iv)
In
the
case
of
surrender
at
any
time
after
allotment but before expiry of due
date and deposit of allotment
money then after deducting 10% of
registration amount the balance
shall be refunded without any
interest thereon.
(v) In case of surrender at
any time after due date of deposit
of allotment money but before
execution of lease deed then after
deduction of amount equivalent to
registration money, the balance if
any shall be refunded without any
interest thereon."

13. Clauses 18(iv) and 18(v)
applied to different situations as is evident
from bare reading of the said clauses. The
common feature was that these would
apply to case of surrender of the allotment
by the allottee. In the instant case, as we
have noted, the petitioner, all through, was
interested in making payment of the
allotment money and obtaining lease deed
in his favour. He repeatedly requested
YEIDA to issue notice to his two brothers,
who were not ready to sign on the no
objection certificate and in case there was
no valid objection, to execute lease deed in
his favour. However, when no action was
taken by YEIDA on the said applications,
the petitioner realizing that now, it would
be futile exercise to pursue the application
any further, applied for return of the
registration money. Thus, it cannot be said
to be a case of surrender as envisaged
800 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under Clauses 18(iv) and 18(v) of the
brochure. It is a case where the petitioner
got compelled to request for cancellation of
the allotment and return of registration
money, in view of a condition not
specifically provided for in the brochure
but imposed subsequently vide letter dated
08.11.2023 i.e., ten months after the
issuance of allotment letter. It seems that
YEIDA
also
never
contemplated
a
situation, which has emerged in the present
case and, therefore, no provision was made
to deal with such applications. In its
subsequent residential scheme floated on
05.07.2024,
YEIDA
has
specifically
provided
for
filing
of
no-objection
certificate, in such a situation. The
condition is as follows:

"If the farmer (whose land
has been acquired/purchased) has
died, then all the legal heirs will
give consent in favor one legal heir
and will also provide the death
certificate and legal heir certificate
of the farmer. Only one plot will be
allotted by the authority"

14. Had any such condition been
part of the Brochure and the petitioner
would have failed to comply with the same,
YEIDA may be justified in forfeiting the
registration money. However, in the instant
case, as already noted, in the absence of
any such condition in the brochure, the
petitioner cannot be made to suffer by way
of forfeiture of the registration money nor
his case would fall under Clause 18(iv) or
18(v) of the brochure.

15. Accordingly, the impugned
order forfeiting the allotment money is
hereby
quashed.
Respondent
no.2
is
directed to refund the registration money to
the petitioner within three weeks from the
date of communication of the instant order
alongwith the account details and upon
completion of other formalities, if any.

16. The writ petition is allowed
accordingly.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 800
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

Writ C No. 31628 of 2024

M/S Bharat Entp. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sr. Advocate, Sri Vaibhav Shandilya

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Udit Chandra

(A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction -
Arbitrary withholding of bank guarantee
despite completion of work and absence
of determined liability - Constitution of
India
-
Article 226
Writ
court
can
intervene when authority acts in arbitrary
or malafide manner dehors the contract -
Writ
Court
may
exercise
jurisdiction
despite existence of arbitration clause if
authority acts arbitrarily or disputed facts
can be verified by affidavits - Arbitrary
action - Withholding of bank guarantee -
Disputed liability - Alternative remedy -
Withholding
entire
bank
guarantee
without established liability is arbitrary;
partial security may be retained in terms
of contract.(Para - 2 to 8)

Bank
guarantee
submitted
by
contractor
withheld by respondents citing possible liabilities
from employee deaths and GST dues - though
such liabilities
were neither accrued
nor