Allahabad High Court Slams KDA For 41-Year Delay In Handing Over Allotted Plot, Directs Chief Minister To Probe Officers' Negligence

The Allahabad High Court has called upon Chief Minister Aditya Yoginath to probe the alleged negligence of KDA officers, responsible for 41 years delay in handing over possession of an allotted land to its now 90-years-old lease holder.Justice Sandeep Jain was dealing with the case of a 90-year old plaintiff who was the highest bidder and the obtained a 999 years lease in 1984 but was not granted possession by the Kanpur Development Authority despite various requests. The bench observed,“… but still only God knows when they will be able to obtain its possession. In the meanwhile, plaintiff no.2 Smt.Yugrani Devi has died on 13.9.2011 and plaintiff no.1 B.N.Tripathi is now almost 90 years old. Since the KDA, is a statutory body of the State, hence the State of Uttar Pradesh is also vicariously liable for the arbitrary, illegal acts committed by the KDA and its officials, in not handing over the possession of the disputed plot to the plaintiffs, without any lawful reason.”While asking the CM to look into the matter and recover damages from negligent officers, the Court observed,“This Court wants the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh to look into this matter and order enquiry to fix negligence of the concerned officials and also to recover the damages from them, in accordance with law…the State must also ensure appropriate disciplinary action against them, for their alleged illegal acts, which were unwarranted, arbitrary and whimsical, which have tarnished the image of the State and its functionary in the public. The State being the protector of the citizens and upholder of the laws,it is never expected from the functionaries of the State that they would act in such an irresponsible and illegal manner.”Plaintiffs claimed to be the joint lessees of 2222sq yards of plot allotted by the Kanpur Development Authority(KDA) in 1984. Since KDA issued a demand of 15% per annum on the plaintiffs, they filed a suit which was decreed in their favour. Despite repeated attempts and letters by the plaintiffs to get the possession of the land, the KDA did not hand over the possession and ultimately the plaintiffs served a legal notice in 2005 on KDA. It was also stated that the plot was bought for a specific business idea for which the plaintiffs obtained registration as well, but due to not getting the possession, they suffered losses of more than Rs. 41 lakhs. Accordingly, they filed another suit before the Civil Court, seeking possession, damages and sanction of building plan. The Trial Court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief as plaintiffs had failed to disclose the time period in which the possession was to be handed over to them, why the possession was not handed over to them, what action did they take for getting the possession, terms and conditions by the KDA after execution of lease deed, etc. Plaintiffs challenged the order of the Trial Court before the High Court. The Court observed that even though the lease deed did not mention anything regarding possession of the plot, the burden was on KDA to handover the possession to the plaintiffs. It held that the KDA had made a bald assertion that it had transferred possession without producing any memo of possession which is supposed to be signed by two witnesses. It noted that no valid reason was explained by KDA for not handing over the possession of the plot. The Court observed that the plaintiffs had continuously written for possession of the property from 1985 till the filing of the suit, and had produced the documents in support of this assertion. It further noted that no reply was given by KDA to the plaintiffs and no reason was given for not replying to the plaintiffs or for not handing over the possession. Since everything had been brought on record by the plaintiffs, the Court held that the findings of the Trial Court were perverse and it had not gone through the averments and the supporting documents supplied by the plaintiffs. “It is further apparent that this issue has not been examined by the trial court but at this stage, after about 19 years of litigation, the matter cannot be remanded to the trial court for the assessment of damages, which will further prolong the agony of the plaintiffs. It is apparent that plaintiff no. 2 Yugrani Devi has died during the pendency of the suit, whereas, plaintiff no.1 B.N.Tripathi is almost 90 years old, as such, this Court has examined the quantum of damages to which the plaintiffs are legally entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”Noting that the possession had not been handed over for 41 years, the Court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to the loss which they suffered because they could not operate the business for which the plot was leased. Accordingly, the Court awarded them damages at the rate of ₹ 13,700/- per month from 01.7.1987 till the possession of the disputed plot is not handed to the plaintiffs, along with pendentilite and future interest @ 6% per ...

Allahabad High Court Slams KDA For 41-Year Delay In Handing Over Allotted Plot, Directs Chief Minister To Probe Officers' Negligence

Upasna Agrawal

Tags