KRISHNA KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Krishna Kumar Misra and Vidya Nand Tripathi, two Petitioners before us, have prayed for the following reliefs :

(2.) The Allahabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the A.D.A.") has been constituted under the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 to promote and secure the development of the area according to plan and for that purpose the A.D.A. shall have power to acquire, hold, manage and dispose of land and other property, to carry out building and other necessary operations. The A.D.A. has been enjoined with the duty to provide developed plots, sites and houses to needy persons in a planned way. In the year 1991 the A.D.A. published two Housing Schemes known as Kalindi Puram Housing Scheme and Shringber Puram Housing Scheme. Wide publicity was given to the aforesaid Schemes. The Petitioners with an intention to have a roof over their head and of their family, applied for a 40 sq. metre plot each in the Scheme known as Kalindi Puram Scheme. It appears that there were large number of applicants and draw of plots was held by lottery. The Petitioners were allotted one plot each in the aforesaid Scheme vide Chairman's letter dated 20.11.1991. On account of unforeseen circumstances the development work at the site was not undertaken. After more than ten years the sale deed was executed on 22nd December, 2004 by the A.D.A. in favour of the Petitioners in respect of two plots viz. D.1-446 and D.1-457 each measuring 50 sq. metre. Formal possession of the plot on papers were given but when the Petitioners went to the site to take actual physical possession and start construction they faced stiff resistance from the actual owners of the land claiming that the aforesaid two plots have not been acquired as they did not form part of the acquisition proceedings. The Petitioners approached the A.D.A. for handing over actual physical possession but their efforts failed. The Petitioner made an application under the Rights of Information Act but no action was taken, whereupon they filed an appeal before the appellate authority, i.e., the Vice Ghairman of the A.D.A. but no action was taken by the appellate authority. Thereafter, the Petitioners approached the State Information Commission by means of an appeal registered as Appeal No. 913 (A) /06. The Information Commissioner took cognizance on the said appeal and issued notice to the parties to appear before him. The Information Commissioner directed the A.D.A. vide order dated 15th February, 2007 to give actual physical possession to the Petitioners on 22nd February, 2007. The possession was given on 22nd February, 2007 but when the Petitioners wanted to start work at the site of the plots the co-owners came at the plot and stopped the construction work which was duly informed to the A.D.A. vide letter dated 26.2.2007. It transpired that the plots which have been allotted to the Petitioners have not actually been acquired and the A.D.A. had no right, title or interest in the said plots. The Information Commissioner disposed of the appeal vide order dated 23.4.2007 with a direction to the A.D.A. to take steps to acquire the remaining two biswas land and also to ensure that the allottees get right of actual enjoyment of the property in dispute. No action was taken by the A.D.A. for acquiring the remaining two biswas of land. The actual owners of the land in question started construction work and when this fact was brought to the notice of the A.D.A. it did not take any action.

(3.) In nutshell even though the A.D.A. had executed the sale deed which have also been registered for Plot Nos. D. 1-446 and D. 1-457 in the Kalindi Puram Housing Scheme in favour of the Petitioners but the A.D.A. did not have the title of the said land nor had any right or interest to transfer the same to the Petitioners. Waiting for a sufficient long time and the Petitioner having been duped by the A.D.A. with their hard earned money they have approached this Court seeking the aforementioned reliefs. We may mention here that vide letter dated 29th September, 2008 the Petitioners were asked by the A.D.A. to intimate their choice from amongst the available plots. The Petitioners, having not found suitable plots, did not accept the request and instead approached this Court.