# Rohit Lal v. Muzaffarnagar Development Authority & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 810
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-29
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 51594 of 2000
- **Bench:** Salil Kumar Rai, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rohit-lal-v-muzaffarnagar-development-authority-ors-50634
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Cancellation of Shop Allotment
- Rights of Allottee and Purchaser -
Equitable
Considerations
-
By
the
impugned order dated 18.11.2000, the
allotment of Shop No. G-3 in favor of the
petitioner was canceled and thereafter it
was allotted to respondent no. 4 on
03.12.2002 during the pendency of the
present petition, as no interim order was
granted. Thereafter, a sale deed regarding
Shop No. G-3 was executed in favor of
respondent no. 4 on 22.03.2003 by the
Development
Authority.
Held:
Mere
allotment of a shop does not confer the
right to execute a sale deed in favor of the
petitioner. Allotment, at most, can be
equated to an agreement to sell, but it
does not grant the petitioner an absolute
right to compel the municipal authority to
sell the shop to him. On the other hand,
after the allotment of the shop in 2002, a
sale deed was executed in favor of
respondent
no.
4
on
22.03.2003,
absolutely transferring ownership. The
respondent, after obtaining possession,
established his watch-selling business.
Considering the equity and bona fide
conduct of respondent no. 4 in purchasing
the shop without knowledge of the
present litigation, quashing the order
dated
18.11.2000
would
disturb
the
established business of respondent no. 4.
Writ dismissed.
Dismissed. (E-5)

## Text

810 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2023) 7 ILRA 810
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 51594 of 2000

Rohit Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
Muzaffarnagar Development Authority &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Miss Mona Rajvanshi, Sri M.K. Rajvanshi,
Sri Sumit Daga, Sri Vishesh Rajvanshi. Sri
Rakesh Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri P.K. Singh, Sri R.K. Jain, Sri Rajesh
Kumar Pandey, S.C., Sri K.M. Garg, Sri
Sumit Daga
Civil Law - Cancellation of Shop Allotment
- Rights of Allottee and Purchaser -
Equitable
Considerations
-
By
the
impugned order dated 18.11.2000, the
allotment of Shop No. G-3 in favor of the
petitioner was canceled and thereafter it
was allotted to respondent no. 4 on
03.12.2002 during the pendency of the
present petition, as no interim order was
granted. Thereafter, a sale deed regarding
Shop No. G-3 was executed in favor of
respondent no. 4 on 22.03.2003 by the
Development
Authority.
Held:
Mere
allotment of a shop does not confer the
right to execute a sale deed in favor of the
petitioner. Allotment, at most, can be
equated to an agreement to sell, but it
does not grant the petitioner an absolute
right to compel the municipal authority to
sell the shop to him. On the other hand,
after the allotment of the shop in 2002, a
sale deed was executed in favor of
respondent
no.
4
on
22.03.2003,
absolutely transferring ownership. The
respondent, after obtaining possession,
established his watch-selling business.
Considering the equity and bona fide
conduct of respondent no. 4 in purchasing
the shop without knowledge of the
present litigation, quashing the order
dated
18.11.2000
would
disturb
the
established business of respondent no. 4.
Writ dismissed.
Dismissed. (E-5)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned
counsel assisted by Sri Vishesh Rajvanshi,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.M.
Garg, learned counsel assisted by Sri Sumit
Daga, learned counsel for respondent no.4
and Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned
counsel for the Development Authority.

2. By means of present writ petition,
the petitioner has challenged the order
dated 18.11.2000 passed by respondent
no.2 by which allotment of Shop No.G-3 in
favour of petitioner was cancelled on the
ground that petitioner as well as his son
both were having two adjacent shops G-2
and G-3 on the ground floor facing Bhagat
Singh Road and both of these shops are
being used for the business of watch and
there is scarcity of shop facing to Bhagat
Singh Road.

3. Initially the present writ petition
was allowed by order dated 03.05.2018 and
impugned order dated 18.11.2000 was
quashed and respondent nos.2 and 3 were
directed to handover the possession of
Shop No.G-3 to petitioner. Thereafter, a
recall application was filed by respondent
no.4 along with impleadment application to
recall the order dated 03.05.2018 on the
7 All. Rohit Lal Vs. Muzaffarnagar Development Authority & Ors.
811
ground that shop in question has been
allotted to him in the year 2002 during the
pendency of the present writ petition and he
has been in possession of Shop No.G-3 and
running business of watch and he was not
heard before passing of the order dated
03.05.2018 though he is proper party.
Aforesaid
recall
application
of
the
respondent no.4 was allowed and he was
also impleaded as respondent no.4 by order
dated 11.05.2023. As the sole-petitioner
has also died, therefore, his son Raj Kumar
was also impleaded as petitioner no.1/1 in
the present petition by order dated
15.05.2023. The factual matrix of present
case is as follows :

4. Petitioner as well as respondent no.4
and several other persons claim themselves to
be allottees of different shops constructed
over nala and lease deed were also executed
in their favour by the Nagar Palika Parishad,
Muzaffarnagar.
Thereafter,
in
the
beautification
plan,
Muzaffarnagar
Development
Authority
proposed
to
demolish the shops constructed over the nala
and in lieu of that, all the displaced shop
keepers, who were having shops constructed
over nala, were offered shops in shopping
complex adjacent to Bhagat Singh Road
Muzaffarnagar. In pursuance of that plan,
shops were allotted in shopping complex
adjacent to Bhagat Singh Road.

5. An agreement dated 26.06.1999 was
executed between the petitioner, Rohit Lal
and Muzaffarnagar Development Authority
for the allotment of Shop No.G-1, subject to
condition that he will withdraw his pending
appeal before the High Court. The appeal
pending in the High Court was filed under
Order 23 Rule 1 CPC and related to the
power of the Development Authority to
demolish the shops constructed on the nala
and to evict the shopkeepers from the nala.

6. From the records, it also appears that
one Saidas was allotted Shop No.G-3 at
ground floor and son of petitioner-Rohit Lal
who is presently petitioner no.1/1 was
allotted Shop No.G-2 at ground floor.
Subsequently,
with
the
permission
of
Muzaffarnagar
Development
Authority,
petitioner-Rohit Lal had exchanged his shop
with Saidas and finally Shop No.G-3 was
allotted to petitioner-Rohit Lal and Shop
No.G-1 was allotted to Saidas.

7. Subsequently, a dispute arose
between different allottees for the allotment
of shops on ground floor of shopping
complex for the shops facing towards Bhagat
Singh Road and several petitions were filed
before this Court which were also disposed of
by common order dated 03.05.2018 and
present writ petition is one of the writ
petitions in which the order dated 03.05.2018
was recalled on 11.05.2023, at the instance of
respondent no.4.

8. From perusal of original record of
Muzaffarnagar
Development
Authority
produced before the Court, it appears from
the note sheet that in lieu of earlier shop at
nala, Shop No.G-3 was allotted to petitionerRohit Lal and in lieu of Shop No.31 situated
over nala, Shop No.G-2 was allotted to Raj
Kumar (petitioner no.1/1) and in lieu of Shop
No.32 over nala, Saidas was allotted Shop
No.G-1. There was no interim order in favour
of the petitioner in the present writ petition
and during the pendency of the present
petition, Shop No.G-3 was allotted to
respondent no.4, the recall applicant.

9. Contention of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that impugned order is
absolutely erroneous because allotment of
Shop No.G-3 made in favour of petitionerRohit Lal was cancelled merely because his
son Raj Kumar (petitioner no.1/1) was also
812 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
having adjacent Shop No.G-2 on ground
floor facing towards Bhagat Singh Road,
Muzaffarnagar because father and son were
allotted shops in lieu of their different
shops over nala at Bhagat Singh Road and
both of them have been doing independent
business.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for
respondent no.4 contended that after
cancellation of allotment of G-3 in favour
of petitioner-Rohit Lal by the impugned
order on 18.10.2000, same was allotted to
him on 03.12.2002, during the pendency of
the present petition, as no interim order was
granted, in the present case in lieu of his
Shop No.21/1 existing over nala at Bhagat
Singh Marg. Thereafter, sale deed was also
executed in favour of respondent no.4
regarding Shop No.G-3 on 22.03.2003 by
Muzaffarnagar
Development
Authority,
therefore, he became absolute owner of the
Shop No.G-3. It was further submitted by
learned counsel for the respondent no.4 that
at the time of allotment of Shop No.G-3 in
the year 2002 or at the time of execution of
sale deed in 2003 regarding Shop No.G-3,
he was not informed by the Muzaffarnagar
Development Authority about the present
litigation
regarding
Shop
No.G-3.
Therefore, respondent no.4 is bonafide
purchaser
for
consideration
without
knowledge of pendency of present petition
and now his business of watch in the name
of Lucky Watch has been established and
same has been running since 2002.
Therefore, he cannot be evicted and his sale
deed dated 22.03.2003 regarding Shop
No.G-3 cannot be cancelled in exercise of
extraordinary discretionary power of this
Hon'ble Court because he has right to
remain in possession. Even in equity also,
considering his established business in
Shop No.G-3 running since 2002, and also
the fact that substituted petitioner Raj
Kumar is having four other shops on
ground floor having Shop Nos.G-2, G-33,
G-34 and G-35, he should not be
dispossessed.
Learned
counsel
for
respondent no.4 also relied upon the GST
receipt showing that business of watch in
Shop Nos.G-2 and G-3 was being run by
the petitioner-Rohit Lal. Though, the Shop
No.G-2 was allotted to son of Rohit Lal but
business of watch was run by Rohit Lal, in
both the shops, till the cancellation of
allotment regarding Shop No.G-3.

11. Lastly, it was submitted by
learned counsel for respondent no.4 that,
even though, the impugned order is
confirmed by this Court then no prejudice
will be caused to petitioner because he is
already having four shops at ground floor
facing towards Bhagat Singh Marg and if
impugned order is set aside then petitioner
will suffer irreparable loss because he has
only one shop i.e. G-3 on ground floor
facing towards Bhagat Singh Road in
which his business of watch has been
established.

12. It is relevant to note that in his
affidavit, the Secretary of the Development
Authority has admitted that no information
was given to respondent no.4 about the
pendency of the present petition in this
Court.

13. Considering the rival contentions
and on perusal of record, it is clear that all
the displaced shop keepers, who were
having shops at nala at Saheed Bhagat
Singh Marg, wanted to take shop at ground
floor facing towards the main road i.e.
Bhagat Singh Road. Though, there were
limited shops, therefore, only 20 persons
including the petitioner-Rohit Lal and
petitioner no.1/1 Raj Kumar could initially
get shop at ground floor of the complex
7 All. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. Chhotey Lal & Ors.
813
(Tehsil Vyavasaye Ki Yojana Part II)
facing towards Bhagat Singh Road. As the
petitioner-Rohit Lal and his son Raj Kumar
both of them were having two adjacent
shops (G2 and G3) at ground floor facing
towards Bhagat Singh Road and both of
them were running the same business,
therefore,
Muzaffarnagar
Development
Authority by the impugned order dated
18.11.2000 cancelled the allotment of Shop
No.G-3 in favour of petitioner and retained
the shop of petitioner no.1/1 so as to adjust
other displaced shop keepers at ground
floor. From perusal of impugned order, it
appears that it was passed on the ground
that there is unavailability of shops facing
towards Bhagat Singh Marg and petitioner
as well as his son were having two adjacent
shops at ground floor facing towards
Bhagat Singh Marg and both of them were
running watch selling business. Though,
there is no allotment order regarding Shop
No.G-3 in favour of petitioner-Rohit Lal on
record but from the perusal of note sheet
produced
before
the
court
by
Muzaffarnagar Development Authority as
well as from the impugned order, it appears
that the Shop No.G-3 was allotted to
petitioner-Rohit Lal. Mere allotment of
shop does not give unfettered right to
execute the sale deed of the shop in
question in favour of petitioner. Allotment
in favour of petitioner-Rohit Lal at the most
can be equated to agreement to sell. It does
not give absolute right to petitioner to
compel the municipal authority to sell that
shop to him. On the other hand after
allotment of shop in 2002, sale deed
regarding Shop No.G-3 was also executed
in favour of respondent no.4 on 22.03.2003
which absolutely transferred the ownership
in favour of respondent no.4 and who after
obtaining the possession, established his
business of watch selling. Considering the
equity and bonafide conduct of respondent
no.4 in purchasing the shop without
knowledge
of
the
present
litigation,
quashing the order dated 18.11.2000 will
disturb
the
established
shop of
the
respondent no.4. Even otherwise, after the
death of petitioner-Rohit Lal, the right of
the Rohit Lal has been succeeded by his
son
Raj
Kumar
(Petitioner
No.1/1),
therefore now, Raj Kumar (Petitioner
No.1/1) who has been running G-2 shop
and other purchased shops during the
pendency of present petition on the ground
floor, will not suffer irreparable loss or
prejudice.

14. In view of the above fact, we do
not find it fit to interfere in the impugned
order dated 18.11.2000.

15. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 813
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Matter Under Article 227 No. 5364 of 2018

Rakesh Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Chhotey Lal & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ms. Tanya Pandey, Sri Anil Tiwari (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Anant Ram Dubey, Sri Anil Kumar, Sri Mohit
Gautam, Sri Sudhir Kumar Kulshrestha, Sri
Shobhit Dube

Civil Law - Limitation Act, 1963-Article
136- Suit for specific performance-suit decreedappeal and second Appeal dismissed-decree for
specific relief attained finality- application for