ASHOK TAHILIANI Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the present petition in brief are that an agreement to sell was executed in favour of Dr. Nandlal Tahiliani on 08.03.1972 along with delivery of possession by the erstwhile lessee for a consideration. The agreement to sell was in respect of Premise No. 22, Hastings Road, Allahabad with all these hold rights and the rights attached to the land in building. The said agreement was an unregistered agreement. It is stated that in pursuance of the said agreement to sell the father of the petitioner and, after his death, the petitioner is in actual physical and legal possession in property in question.

(3.) It is stated that the property is constructed on Nazul land being Plot No. 2(A-10) Civil Station, Allahabad. One of the stipulation, in the original lease deed, was that no part of the land can be transferred/sold except with the approval of the State Government, the lessor. It is also stated that on account of the said stipulation Dr. Nandlal Tahiliani approached the State Government for grant of necessary permission for transfer of title in his name vide an application dated 20.1.1973. No decision was taken by the State Government on the said application and, during the pendency of the said application, Dr. Nandlal Tahiliani died on 6.8.1991 leaving behind his son Dr. Ashok Tahiliani, the present petitioner as his legal heir. It is stated that the State Government took decision to convert the lease hold rights pertaining to the Nazul land in the State of Uttar Pradesh into free hold and various Government Orders have been issued from time to time for the said purpose. (which we shall discuss in the latter part of the judgement). The petitioner being desirous of getting free hold rights in his favour applied for grant of free hold rights on 30.1.1999 for a total area admeasuring 5856.53 square meters. The said application is on record as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The petitioner states that no decision was taken by the District Magistrate, however, after about four years, the District Magistrate sought necessary directions from the State Government vide his letter dated 16.7.2003 which was followed by a reminder on 14.6.2005 on which the State Government passed an order dated 25.8.2006 which is impugned in the present writ petition. The State Government, vide the said order dated 25.8.2006 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) rejected the request for grant of free hold rights on the ground that the agreement in favour of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner is not a registered agreement to sell and in the opinion of the DGC (Civil) no steps can be taken for conversion of rights into free hold rights and that in the agreement to sell executed in favour of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner there appears to be no right of renewal in favour of the predecessor. The petitioner has thus approached this Court seeking the quashing of the order dated 25.8.2006 with further directions to the State Government to grant free hold rights in respect of the land as was requested by the petitioner.