# Vishwanath Rai & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1668 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-05-16 - **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal, Shamsher Bahadur Singh - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vishwanath-rai-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43802 - **Pages:** 4 ## Text 1668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 9. The petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.05.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. THE HON'BLE SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH, J. Writ C No.- 28547 Of 2003 Vishwanath Rai & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for Petitioners: J.P. Singh, A.N. Singh, Ajay Singh Counsel for Respondents: C.S.C., Govind Krishna Head Notes: Nazul Land-Leasehold rights-Conversion into freehold-Government Order dated 01.12.1998Subsequent Government Orders-Applicability-Vested right-Doctrine of promissory estoppelPending applications-Consideration of application-Relevant date-Law applicable-Date of decision and not date of application-Division Bench judgment in Dr. O.P. Gupta v. State of U.P.- Overruled-Binding effect of Full Bench-Anand Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P., 2014 (2) ADJ 742-Counsel's duty-Reliance on overruled judgment-Impropriety-Writ petition-Dismissal. Facts: Petitioners were lessees of Nazul land. They applied for conversion of leasehold rights into freehold under Government Order dated 01.12.1998. Petitioners claimed that freehold charges were liable to be calculated as per circle rates of 1991-92, applicable on the date of application. Authorities applied subsequent Government Orders amending the policy. Petitioners relied upon Division Bench judgment in Dr. O.P. Gupta v. State of U.P., 2009 (76) ALR 767, contending that policy existing on the date of application alone would govern. Issues: Whether an applicant acquires a vested right to have his application for freehold considered under the policy existing on the date of application. 5 All. Vishwanath Rai & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 1669 Whether subsequent Government Orders changing freehold policy can be applied to pending applications. Whether the judgment in Dr. O.P. Gupta v. State of U.P. still lays down correct law. Held: No vested right accrues on filing of application: An applicant does not acquire any vested or accrued right merely by submitting an application for grant of freehold. Relevant policy-Date of decision: Application for conversion into freehold is required to be considered in accordance with the Government policy existing on the date of passing of the order, and not on the date of application. Full Bench binding: Full Bench in Anand Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P., 2014 (2) ADJ 742, authoritatively held that subsequent policy changes are applicable to pending applications. Division Bench judgment overruled: The judgment in Dr. O.P. Gupta v. State of U.P. has been specifically overruled by the Full Bench and does not lay down correct law. Promissory estoppel not applicable: State is competent to change policy from time to time; no promise creating enforceable estoppel was established. Impropriety in citing overruled precedent: Learned counsel ought not to have relied upon a judgment already overruled, as it no longer represents valid law. CONCLUSION: The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. (Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. & Hon'ble Shamsher Bahadur Singh, J.) 1. Heard Sri J.P. Singh and Sri Ajay Singh, Advocates, for petitioners, Sri Govind Krishna, Advocate, for respondents 5 and 6, and, perused the record. 2. The only arguments advanced on behalf of petitioners is that petitioners had applied for conversion of lease rights into freehold in accordance with Government Order dated 01.12.1998 1670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES and, therefore, respondents-authorities must allow petitioners to deposit freehold charges as per the circle rate of 1991-92 strictly in accordance with Government Order dated 01.12.1998 and subsequent Government Orders issued by State Government changing conditions of freehold cannot be made applicable to petitioners. Relying on a Division Bench judgment in Dr. O.P. Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and another 2009 (76) ALR 767= 2009 (4) AWC 4038 it is contended that right to be considered for conversion to freehold would vest according to the provisions as were applicable while application was filed for freehold and would not change according to law as it would have been available on the date of passing of order by authorities concerned inasmuch subsequent policy would be prospective and would not apply to the cases where applications are already pending. 3. We find really sorry for petitioners for relying on a Division Bench judgment which has already been overruled by Full Bench in Anand Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary and others 2014 (2) ADJ 742. Following two questions were referred for answer by Larger Bench: "(1) Whether the application of the petitioner dated 25.7.2005 submitted for grant of freehold right on the basis of the Government Order dated 1.12.1998 (Paragraph 7) and the Government Order dated 10.12.2002 (paragraph 5) was entitled to be considered in accordance with the Government policy as was in existence on the date of application or the Government policy as amended by Government Order dated 4.8.2006, was to be taken into consideration while deciding the application on 18.12.2006? (2) Whether the Division Bench judgment in Dr. O.P. Gupta Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (76) ALR 767 lays down the correct law?" 4. Full Bench answered the aforesaid questions in para 46 of judgment as under: "(1) The application of the petitioner dated 25.7.2005 submitted for grant of free hold right on the basis of the Government Orders dated 1.12.1998 and 10.12.2002 was entitled to be considered in accordance with the Government's policy as was in existence at the time of passing of the order. The Government Order dated 4.8.2006 was rightly relied on by the Collector while rejecting the application on 18.12.2006. (2) The Division Bench judgment in Dr. O.P. Gupta's case (supra) does not lay down the correct law insofar as it holds that the application for grant of freehold right is to be considered as per the Government policy as was in existence on the date of making application for grant of freehold right." 5. Thus, it is evident that decision in Dr. O.P. Gupta Vs. State of U.P. (supra) stood overruled by Full Bench in Anand Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. (supra), and, hence ought not to have been cited by learned counsel for petitioners in 2016 before this Court since a counsel is not expected to rely on a judgment which has already been overruled and no more a valid law when 5 All. Ant Ram & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 1671 it is being cited before Court. We also find that relying on Full Bench decision in Anand Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. (supra) there is another Division Bench decision in Ashyana Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. through Principal Awas Vikas U.P. & Others (Writ C No. - 48641 of 2007) decided on 30.05.2014 wherein this Court has said as under: "In view of the foregoing discussion, we thus, conclude that doctrine of promissory estoppel is not applicable in the present case, the State was fully entitled to change its policy from time to time and the Government Order dated 22.10.2002 was well within the power of the State Government. The petitioners had not acquired any vested right under the Government Order dated 2.6.1998 nor the present case is a case of taking away any vested right of the petitioners. We do not find any infirmity in the Government Order dated 22.10.2002 and the decision of Housing Commissioner dated 16.9.2006 which may warrant any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petitioners are not entitled for any relief in these writ petitions. All the writ petitions are dismissed." 6. In view of above exposition of law laid down in Anand Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. (supra) followed in Ashyana Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. through Principal Awas Vikas U.P. (supra), we find no substance in the submission advanced by learned counsel for petitioners. 7. No other point has been argued. 8. The writ petition lacks merits. Dismissed. 9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.05.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J. Writ C No.- 52633 Of 2014 Ant Ram & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel For the Petitioners: Sri Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot, Sri Krishna Hans Pratap Singh Counsel For the Respondents: C.S.C.