# State of U.P v. Radha Charan Since Deceased & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 803
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-11
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 40939 of 2004
- **Bench:** Umesh Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-radha-charan-since-deceased-anr-50628
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, Section 10(2) - Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 - Sections 122 & 123 -
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Act, 1950, Section 152 - Gift -
Gift to minor. In the instant case, the
donor, tenure-holder Radha Charan, by a
registered gift deed dated 16.04.1979
(prior to 24 January 1971), gifted an area
of 20.26 acres of land to his minor sons,
namely Madan Pal Singh, aged about 14
years, and Ram Pal Singh, aged about 6
years, under the guardianship of their
mother, Suhag Rani. Prescribed Authority
passed order after excluding the land
covered by the gift deed to the extent of
20.26 acres from the holding of Radha
Charan. In the writ petition, the State's
case was that the minors were not
entitled to receive a gift deed in their
favor and that the land held by them in
their own names was liable to be clubbed
together with the land of their father, who
was the original tenure-holder, and the
same was rightly included in the notice.
Held : Gift deed was executed in favor of
the minor sons through their mother, Smt.
Suhag Rani. Though the donees were
minors,
they
had
accepted
the
gift
through their mother, who was competent
to accept the gift on behalf of her sons.
There
was
a
recital
of
delivery
of
possession. Even the property in question
had been mutated in the names of the
donees, and during the lifetime of the
donor, the donees attained the age of
majority and also accepted the gift deed,
behaving with the property in question as
Bhumidhars with transferable rights. All
the elements of a valid gift were complete.
Radha Charan was the Bhumidhar who
transferred his right, title, and interest in
20.26 acres of agricultural land through a
gift deed dated 21.04.1969 to his minor
sons. Gift deed was in accordance with
land laws. The impugned judgment and
order of the learned appellate court are
legal and valid and are not liable to be
interfered with. (Para 21, 22, 35)
Dismissed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

7 All. State of U.P. Vs. Radha Charan Since Deceased & Anr.
803
05.07.2021
passed
in
Case
No.
REV/158/2021 (Computerized Case No.
AL2021165300158), in accordance with
law, after giving due opportunity to the
parties
concerned,
expeditiously
and
preferably within a period of three months
from the date of presentation of a certified
copy of this order.

15. The petition stands allowed to the
extent indicated above.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 803
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Writ-C No. 40939 of 2004

State of U.P. ...Petitioner
Versus
Radha Charan Since Deceased & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C., Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot
Civil Law - Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, Section 10(2) - Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 - Sections 122 & 123 -
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Act, 1950, Section 152 - Gift -
Gift to minor. In the instant case, the
donor, tenure-holder Radha Charan, by a
registered gift deed dated 16.04.1979
(prior to 24 January 1971), gifted an area
of 20.26 acres of land to his minor sons,
namely Madan Pal Singh, aged about 14
years, and Ram Pal Singh, aged about 6
years, under the guardianship of their
mother, Suhag Rani. Prescribed Authority
passed order after excluding the land
covered by the gift deed to the extent of
20.26 acres from the holding of Radha
Charan. In the writ petition, the State's
case was that the minors were not
entitled to receive a gift deed in their
favor and that the land held by them in
their own names was liable to be clubbed
together with the land of their father, who
was the original tenure-holder, and the
same was rightly included in the notice.
Held : Gift deed was executed in favor of
the minor sons through their mother, Smt.
Suhag Rani. Though the donees were
minors,
they
had
accepted
the
gift
through their mother, who was competent
to accept the gift on behalf of her sons.
There
was
a
recital
of
delivery
of
possession. Even the property in question
had been mutated in the names of the
donees, and during the lifetime of the
donor, the donees attained the age of
majority and also accepted the gift deed,
behaving with the property in question as
Bhumidhars with transferable rights. All
the elements of a valid gift were complete.
Radha Charan was the Bhumidhar who
transferred his right, title, and interest in
20.26 acres of agricultural land through a
gift deed dated 21.04.1969 to his minor
sons. Gift deed was in accordance with
land laws. The impugned judgment and
order of the learned appellate court are
legal and valid and are not liable to be
interfered with. (Para 21, 22, 35)
Dismissed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:
1. Sakuntala Devi Vs Amar Devi, A.I.R. 1985
H.P. 111
2. Gauranga Sahu & ors.Vs Maguni Dev & ors.,
A.I.R. 1991 Orissa 151, page 155
3. Sanjukta Ray Vs Bimelendu Mohanty, A.I.R.
1997 Orissa 131
4. Kamakshi Ammal Vs Rajalakshmi, A.I.R. 1995
Madras 415
804 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
5. K. Balakrishnan Vs K. Kamalam, A.I.R. 2004
S.C. 1257
6. Ashkar Singh & Another Vs Rawal Singh &
anr., A.I.R. 1952 P & H 148, p. 150
7. Balwant Singh Vs Chatin Singh, A.I.R. 1985 P
& H 74
(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Naresh Chandra Pal,
Advocate, holding brief of Sri Indra Pal
Singh Rajpoot and learned Standing
Counsel for the State and perused material
available on record.

2. This writ petition has been filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari for quashing the
impugned judgment and order dated
29.04.2004
passed
by
Additional
Commissioner,
Chitrakoot
Dhaam
Division, Banda.

3. In brief, fact of the case are that a
notice was issued to late Radha Charan
(Deceased) Resident of Village Chilli
Pargana and Tehsil Rath, District Banda,
under Section 10 (2) of the Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, for filing
objection on the basis that there is Rakba
26.97 Acre surplus irrigated land, which
has to be forfeited in favour of the State. As
per notice maximum useful area is 24.00
Acre and after service of notice Radha
Charan filed an objection that the land of
the objector is un-irrigated land and it has
wrongly been shown to be irrigated land.
He further mentioned that from his wife
Suhag Rani, out of wedlock Ram Pal Singh
and Madan Pal Singh were born, who were
living separately. Since the time of their
mother, for their livelihood 20.00 acre of
the land was given to them as their share of
which they are in possession and are
cultivating the same. When the children
were not satisfied they got the land
transferred by way of gift-deed from the
objector since before 24.01.1971, therefore,
this land should not be added in the account
of the objector. Both the sons are adult and
the transfer in favour of the sons is legal
and valid.

4. After several years from the death
of
Smt.
Suhag
Rani,
the
objector
solemnised another marriage with Smt.
Girja Rani and with whom he had two
children, Km. Saroj and Jai Singh, thus the
family of the objector consists of husband
and wife and two minor children. Arazi
Nos. 644, 645 & 1694 are in possession
and holding of the objector and it has been
wrongly included in the possession of
Mohan Lal, Murlidhar, Swami and Channni
and another. Their name has wrongly been
mentioned and they are not in possession.
Usar and grove land has wrongly been
shown as Majrua land. It has also been
mentioned that in the order dated 09th
January, 1975, the Prescribed Authority has
accepted the existence of adult sons and
9.02 acre un-irrigated land has been shown
as surplus land and the question regarding
this point cannot be raised again. Only the
land in the name of the applicant can be
considered.

5. Madan Pal Singh and Ram Pal
Singh, have filed an objection on the
similar in nature and Bhurjai, Khamodeen,
Channo, Mohan Lal and Mataiyya have
filed separate objection which is similar to
para 9 of the objection of the tenure holder.

6. Issues were framed and the
evidences
were
recorded
and
on
22.06.1976. Mool Chandra Yadav, the
7 All. State of U.P. Vs. Radha Charan Since Deceased & Anr.
805
Prescribed
Authority,
Ceiling,
Rath,
Hamirpur held that 17.40 Acre normal or
8.16 Acre irrigated land is surplus land.
Prior to that on 09.01.1975 Sri C.L. Verma,
Prescribed
Authority,
Rath,
District
Hamirpur passed judgment and order dated
09.01.1975 and held that 9.02 Acre unirrigated land of the tenure holder Radha
Charan is surplus land for the purposes of
Ceiling Act.

7. The order dated 22.06.1976 passed
by the Prescribed Authority was challenged
in the Court of District Judge, Hamirpur,
which was decided on 23.12.1976 by III
Additional District Judge in Appeal No. 01
of 1976, which was challenged by the
Tenure Holder in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No. 925 of 1977 - Radha Charan Vs. State
of U.P & Ors. Which was decided on 08th
November, 1978.

8. The petition was partly allowed and
the order dated 23.12.1976 passed by III
Additional District Judge, Hamirpur was
set aside and he was directed to rehear the
appeal on the second point mentioned in
the judgement of the High Court and it was
directed to pass afresh order. Thereafter,
the case was decided. After amendment in
the Act on 24.03.1988, the Commissioner
Jhansi Division, Jhansi decided the appeal
against
the
petitioner,
which
was
challenged in the High Court by filing Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 9597 of 1988,
which was decided on 14.09.1994 and the
Additional
Commissioner,
Jhansi
-
Respondent no. 2 was directed to decide
the appeal afresh in accordance with law.

9. In compliance of the above order,
the appeal was decided by Sri Usha Raman,
Additional
Commissioer,
Chitrakoot
Dhaam Mandal, Banda on 29th April, 2004
and the appeal was allowed.

Being aggrieved, by the order of
the appellate court dated 29th April, 2004,
the State of U.P. has filed this petition for
quashment of impugned order dated
29.04.2004 (annexure no. 1) passed by the
Additional
Commissioner,
Chitrakoot
Dhaam Bhana.

10. In this appeal, the State of U.P.
averts that this writ petition has been filed
against the judgement and order dated
29.04.2004
passed
by
Additional
Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dhaam Mandal,
Banda, Ceiling Appeal No. 803 of 1976, 04
of 1985-86 and 06 of 2003-04 Radha
Charan (Deceased) Madan Pal and another
Vs. State of U.P, the grievance is that the
appellate authority has allowed the appeal
and sent the file to the Prescribed Authority
have passed orders after excluding land
covered by gift deed to the extent of 20.26
Acre from the holding of Radha Charan.
The judgment and order 29.04.2004 has
been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the
petition.

11. A notice under Section 10 (2) of
the Ceiling Act was issued against Radha
Charan the original tenure holder proposing
09.02 Acre of land to be declared surplus,
who filed objection claiming that his one of
the son was major and his family contains
of seven members and the notice was not
prepared
correctly.
The
Prescribed
Authority on 09.01.1975 declared 9.02
Acre unirrigated land situated in Tehsil
Rath, Hamirpur to be surplus, which is
annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the petition.

12. Thereafter the U.P Imposition of
Ceiling on the Land Holdings Act, 1960
was amended and explanation was added to
Section 5 of the Act alongwith Section 38A of the Act. Under the amended
provisions, the Prescribed Authority issued
806 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
afresh notice to the tenure holder Radha
Charan including the land of Plot Nos. 812,
813 and 816 etc. total area 20.26 acres,
which was gifted to Radha Charan's son
(minor) on 16.04.1969.

13. Radha Charan filed objection
against the second notice mainly on the
ground that both the donees Madan Pal
Singh
Ram Pal
Singh,
were
living
separately alongwith their mother of the
deceased and the gifted land was not given
to him. Hence, the same cannot be made
subject matter of the proceedings initiated
against him.

14. The Prescribed Authority after
considering the entire evidence, declared
17.40 acers equivalent to 8.16 acres, land to
be surplus land, copy of the order dated
22.06.1976 annexed as Annexure No. 03 to
the petition. The said order was challenged
before the District Judge, Hamirpur, which
was dismissed vide order dated 23.12.1976,
which was challenged in Writ Petition No.
925 of 1977, which was partly allowed by
the Hon'ble High Court vide judgement
and order dated 08.11.1978, which is
annexed to the petition as annexure no. 4.
The appeal was remanded and after the
remand, the same was again dismissed vide
order dated 24.03.1988, which is annexed
as Annexure No. 5 to the petition.

15. The order dated 24.03.1988 was
again challenged in writ petition no. 9597
of 1996, which was allowed by this
Hon'ble High Court vide judgment and
order dated 14.09.1994, remanding the
appeal for reconsideration in light of
observations made in the order, which is
annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the writ
petition.

16. In pursuant to the order dated
14.09.1994, the appellate authority decided
the appeal committing error in accepting
the gift deed dated 19.04.1969 by Radha
Charan in favour of his minor sons namely
Ram Pal Singh and Madan Pal Singh, copy
of gift deed is annexed as Annexure No. 7
to the writ petition. On the date of
execution of gift-deed, Madan Pal Singh
was about 14 years of age whereas Ram Pal
Singh was hardly six years old and none of
them was major. Therefore they were not
entitled to give gift deed made in their
favour and the land held by them in there
own name was liable to be club together
with the land of his father, who was the
original tenure holder and the same was
rightly included in the notice.

17. There is also evidence that Radha
Charan was in possession over the land
covered by the Gift Deed on the relevant
date. Therefore the exclusion of the land
was not permissible.

18. In this case the main question is as
to whether the registered gift-deed dated
16.04.1979 prior to the date of 24th
January, 1971 in favour of sons Madan Pal
Singh aged about 14 years and Ram Pal
Singh @ Ram Singh aged about six years
through their guardian Smt. Suhagrani wife
of the donor Radha Charan is valid or not.
In this regard the learned appellate court
has given finding that by way of the
aforesaid gift deed, the donor tenure holder
Radha Charan had gifted an area of 20.26
acre of land to his sons under the
guardianship of their mother Suhag Rani.
There is also an averment of delivery of
possession. The gift deed is registered on
which basis the name of the donees had
been mutated.
7 All. State of U.P. Vs. Radha Charan Since Deceased & Anr.
807

19. The learned appellate court has
also considered the circumstances that
Radha Charan had solemnised another
marriage. The donees were his sons from
the first wife whom he transferred the
property in their mother's guardianship,
hence the gift deed appears to be a natural
human conduct and transaction.

20. It is noteworthy that contrary to
that nothing could be proved from the side
of the State. In this regard provisions of
Section 122 and Section 123 of The
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, are
relevant, which are reproduced here-inbelow :-

Section 122 and Section 123 The
Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

122. "Gift" defined.-"Gift" is
the transfer of certain existing moveable
or immoveable property made voluntarily
and without consideration, by one person,
called the donor, to another, called the
donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the
donee.

Acceptance when to be made.-
Such acceptance must be made during the
lifetime of the donor and while he is still
capable of giving. If the donee dies before
acceptance, the gift is void.

123. Transfer how effected ---
For the purpose of making a gift of
immoveable property, the transfer must be
effected by a registered instrument signed
by or on behalf of the donor, and attested
by at least two witnesses."

On the basis of the above
definition, essential elements of a gift are :-

(a). the absence of consideration;

(b). the donor;

(c) the donee;

(d) to be voluntary;

(e) the subject-matter;

(f) the transfer; and

(g) the acceptance.

21. In this case no consideration has
been taken by the donor. The donor was a
legally competent person. Though, the
donees were minor, but they had accepted
the gift through their mother, who was
competent to accept the gift on behalf of
her sons. It has been proved that the gift
deed had been executed voluntarily without
any
coercion,
undue
influence,
misrepresentation or fraud and the deed is
not barred by any law. The owner of the
subject matter was alive and the propertyin-question was into existence, there are
several modes of transfer and the propertyin-question has been transferred by way of
gift and the mother of both the donees had
accepted the gift deed on behalf of the sons.
There is recital of delivery of possession.
Even the property-in-question had been
mutated in the name of donees and during
the life time of donor, the donees attained
the age of majority and they also accepted
the gift deed and are behaving with the
property in question as Bhumidhar with
transferable rights. Thus all the element of
a gift of a valid gift is complete.

22. From the perusal of last line of
Section 122, it is very much clear that a gift
can be accepted by or on behalf of the
donees and it is very much mentioned in
the gift deed that the gift deed was
executed in favour of the minor sons
through their mother Smt. Suhag Rani.
Thus, it cannot be said that the gift deed
has not been accepted in accordance with
law. The donor never claimed this property
in future, he had not taken any legal action
to cancel the aforesaid gift deed. He had
not filed any objection regarding mutation
on the names of the donees, though the
donees were minor, but a gift can be made
in favour of a minor.
808 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

In page 1257 (4) of 10th Edition
of Mulla, the Transfer of Property Act, it is
mentioned that :-

"The donee is the person who
accepts the gift. A gift may be accepted by,
or on behalf of a person who is not
competent to contract. A minor may,
therefore be a donee; but if the gift is
onerous,
the
obligation
cannot
be
enforced against him while he is minor.
But when he attains majority he must
either accept the burden, or return the
gift.

The word 'accepted by or on
behalf of the donee' show that the donee
may be a person unable to express
acceptance. A gift can be made to a child
en ventre sa mere, and could be accepted
on its behalf."

The reference of column no. 7 at
page no. 1259 of the same book, is also
relevant, which is reproduced here-inbelow:

"7 - Acceptance

In order to constitute a valid gift,
the pivotal requirement is acceptance
thereof. No particular mode of acceptance
is required, and the circumstances throw
light on that aspect. A transaction of gift
in order to be complete must be accepted
by the donee during the lifetime of the
donor. Factum of acceptance can be
established by different circumstances
such as donee taking a property, or being
in possession of deed of gift alone. If a
document of gift after its execution or
registration in favour of donee is handed
over to him by the donor which he accepts,
it amounts to a valid acceptance of gift in
law. The specific recital in the deed that
possession is given, raises a presumption
of acceptance. However, once it is found
that the gift was accepted and the truth of
the contents of the gift deed was admitted,
clinching evidence is required to establish
that the donor still retained possession
with him, and the document was not acted
upon."

23. In Sakuntala Devi Vs. Amar Devi
A.I.R 1985 H.P. Page 111, it has been held
that the acceptance may be inferred.

24. In Gauranga Sahu and Ors. Vs.
Maguni Dev & Ors. A.I.R 1991 Orrisa
151, page 155. It has been held that oral
evidence can be looked into for finding out
whether the gift had, in fact, been acted
upon.

25. In this case, it has been said by the
donor through objection/counter affidavit
that he delivered the possession to the
donees and he had gifted the property in
love and affection to his sons.

26. In Sanjukta Ray Vs. Bimelendu
Mohanty A.I.R. 1997 Orrissa 131, it has
been held that where there is a specific
recital in the gift-deed that possession has
been handed over to the donee, a
presumption arises that possession has been
handed over to the donees.

27. In Kamakshi Ammal Vs.
Rajalakshmi A.I.R 1995 Madras 415, it
has been held that where a father made a
gift to his daughter and on its acceptance
by her, she allows her father to enjoy the
income from the properties settled in view
of the relationship of father and daughter
between he donor and donee, it could not
be said that there was no acceptance of gift
by the donee even assuming that the donor
continued
to
be
in
possession
and
enjoyment of the property gifted. Delivery
of possession of the gifted property is not
absolute requirement, for the completeness
or the validity of the gift as found in
Muslim law of gifts.
7 All. State of U.P. Vs. Radha Charan Since Deceased & Anr.
809

28. In K. Balakrishnan Vs. K.
Kamalam A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 1257, it has
been held that a minor may accept benefit,
although he cannot incur an obligation.
Where a gift is made in favour of a child of
the donor, who is the guardian of the child,
the acceptance of gift can be presumed to
have been made by him, or on his behalf
without any overt act signifying acceptance
by the minor.

29. In Ashkar Singh & Another Vs.
Rawal Singh & Another, A.I.R 1952 P &
H 148, P. 150, it has been held that a
minor's guardian may accept a gift deed for
him. Gift would be complete where the
guardian accepts the gift on behalf of the
minors and in token of acceptance, appends
his thumb impression on the gift deed.
Similar views has been propounded by P &
H High Court in Balwant Singh Vs. Chatin
Singh A.I.R 1985 P & H 74.

30. Under Section 152 of the U.P.Z.A
& L.R Act, 1950, there is provision of
transfer of Bhumidhari interest. Radha
Charan
was
the
Bhumidhar,
who
transferred his right, title and interest of
20.26 acre of agricultural land through gift
deed dated 21.04.1969, to his minor sons.

31. The relevant portion of Section
152 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 is as under : -

"152. Bhumidhari interest when
transferable. --- (1) The interest of a
bhumidhar with transferable rights shall
subject to the
conditions hereinafter
contained, be transferable.

(2). Except otherwise expressly
permitted by this Act or any other law for
the time being in force, the interest of a
bhumidhar with non-transferable rights
shall not be transferable.

(3) A bhumidhar referred to in
sub-section
(2)
may,
in
such
circumstances as may be prescribed,
mortgage, without possession his interest
in his holding, as security for a loan
taken from the State Government by way
of taqavi, or from a co-operative society
or from the State Bank of India, or from
any other bank, which is a Scheduled
bank within the meaning of clause (e) of
section 2 of the Reserve Bank of India
Act, 1934, or from the Uttar Pradesh
State
Agro-Industrial
Corporation
Limited, and may also transfer, by way of
gift, the interest in his holding, expect the
part
thereof
which
has
been
so
mortgaged, to a recognised educational
institution for any purpose connected
with
instructions
in
agriculture,
horticulture and animal husbandry."

32. Thus, from the above citation, it is
again made clear that a Bhumidhar with
transferable rights can transfer his right,
title and interest of any agricultural land 'by
way of gift' which Radha Charan had
adopted. Thus the alleged gift deed is also
in accordance with the land laws.

33. On the basis of above discussion,
this Court is of the considered view that the
impugned judgment and order of the
learned appellate court is legal and valid
and is not liable to be interfered with.

34. The petition lacks merit and is
liable to be dismissed.

35. The petition is accordingly
dismissed and the order of learned
appellate court dated 29.04.2004 passed by
the Additional Commissioner Chitrakoot
Dhaam, Banda Division Banda, is hereby
confirmed.
----------
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