State Can't Claim Land Is Pond Without Challenging 113 Years Old Sale Deed, Decades-Old Abadi Entries: Allahabad High Court
While dealing with a writ petition seeking No Objection Certificate for construction of a hotel on the land in question, the Allahabad High Court held that the land cannot be claimed as 'pond' without challenging the sale deed for the land which was made 113 years ago. While the Municipal Corporation, Varanasi pleaded that the land was a pond in Fasli year 1291, corresponding to 1884...
While dealing with a writ petition seeking No Objection Certificate for construction of a hotel on the land in question, the Allahabad High Court held that the land cannot be claimed as 'pond' without challenging the sale deed for the land which was made 113 years ago.
While the Municipal Corporation, Varanasi pleaded that the land was a pond in Fasli year 1291, corresponding to 1884 CE, observing that the land was recorded as an abadi land in revenue records, the bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan held,
“The respondent No. 2- Corporation having failed to challenge the validity and genuineness of the sale deed dated 19.11.1913 and as such, the respondent No. 2 Corporation, after a lapse of about 113 years thereafter, would be estopped from alleging otherwise that there is pond situated at the property in dispute. One of the central principles of the doctrine of promissory estoppel is that the law will not permit an unconscionable departure by one party from the subject matter of an assumption which has been adopted by the other party as the basis of a course of conduct which would affect the other party, if the assumption is not adhered to.”
In 1913, the then Municipal Board of Banaras, transferred the land in question along with the structures on it to Maharaja Mahindra Chandra Nandy. In 1920, another 5 biswas of land was transferred to the Maharaja by one Jnanendra Basu, who had also purchased the land by registered sale deed. The successors of the Maharaja sold certain portions of the land to Godrej Dhunjishaw Gandhi and Shavak Dhunjishaw Gandhi.
They further purchased some land from Raja Ram Sahu, and transferred a portion of it in favour of Sri Shiv Dayal Khemka Charitable Trust through registered sale deed. Subsequently, Godrej Dhunjishaw Gandhi and Shavak Dhunjishaw Gandhi had constructed Mazda Cinema Hall over the their property having an area of 22,571.84 sq ft, which ran for 50 years. Successors of Godrej Dhunjishaw Gandhi and Shavak Dhunjishaw Gandhi sold the property to the petitioner. Petitioner's name was mutated in the revenue records in 2011.
Petitioner applied for No Objection for construction of Star Hotel with investment of Rs. 100 crores. However, the same was rejected by the Municipal Corporation on grounds that the land was recorded as a pond in Fasli year 1291, corresponding to 1884 CE in the revenue records. This rejection was challenged before the High Court.
The Court observed that there was no dispute regarding transfer of property to the Maharaja and then subsequent sale to the petitioner. it noted that the property was also recorded for the purpose of collection of house tax and water tax in the records of the Municipal Corporation since 1927. It also noted that the land is situated in a densely populated area.
The Court further observed that it was only after filing of the writ petition, the respondent approached IIT BHU for possibilities for restoration of the pond. From the report, it was deduced that there was no pond or water body on the site, therefore, new pond development would have to take place, and the property in dispute was located in a densely populated area.
It observed that it was not contested that the records were available from 1954 and the land was recorded as abadi and not as a pond. It also noted that records for only Fasli Year 1291 were available and the records before and after that year were not available with the respondents.
“…the Respondent No. 2 Corporation does not dispute the execution of the sale deed dated 19.11.1913 in respect of land measuring 2 bighas and 7 biswas comprised in Areas No. 2404 in favour of the predecessor of the petitioner, which had no character of a pond. It is a settled position of law that a registered sale deed carries with it a formidable presumption of validity and genuineness. Registration is not a mere procedural formality but a solemn act that imparts a high degree of sanctity to the document. Consequently, a court must not lightly or casually declare a registered instrument as a " sham".”
Observing that the action of the authority was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Court held that petitioner had valid title and possession over the property in dispute which was obtained through a registered sale deed. It held that the title and possession of the petitioner could only be disturbed by the respondents only by law.
Accordingly, the Court held that the No Objection Certificate could not be rejected on sole grounds of existence of pond in 1884. It directed the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner.
Case Title: M/s Knots India Carpets Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 349
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 349
Appearances: Ashish Kumar Singh and Tarun Agarwal, Senior Advocates assisted by Shashwat Gupta, counsel for petitioner, M.C. Chaturvedi, Senior Counsel assisted by Vineet Sankalp, counsel for respondent no. 2 and 3