Kalyan Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Facts

The petitioner, Kalyan Singh, challenged an order by the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) forfeiting his allotment money of Rs. 3,98,520/- for a plot allotted under the 'farmers category'. The petitioner's father's land was acquired by YEIDA. The petitioner applied for a plot in a scheme launched in 2023, claiming eligibility through his deceased father. After his application was accepted and he was successful in the draw, YEIDA, by a letter dated 08.11.2023, required him to submit indemnity bonds and a no-objection certificate from other heirs, as his father had died before the scheme's launch. Two of his brothers refused to provide no-objection certificates. The petitioner made representations and subsequently applied for a refund of the allotment money, which was rejected by YEIDA, relying on Clause 18(iv) of the brochure.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner, as an heir of the original tenure holder, was eligible to apply under the 'farmers category', especially since his application was accepted and he was successful in the draw, indicating that the application was considered complete by YEIDA. The Court found no illegality in YEIDA requiring a no-objection certificate from other heirs, as it was a reasonable condition to avoid future disputes. However, the Court ruled that YEIDA could not forfeit the entire allotment money. The condition of submitting no-objection certificates was introduced via a letter dated 08.11.2023, after the allotment letter was issued and registration money was deposited, and was not a part of the original brochure. Therefore, the petitioner could not be made to suffer forfeiture. The Court also found that the case did not fall under Clause 18(iv) or 18(v) as it was not a case of voluntary surrender but a situation where the petitioner was compelled to seek a refund due to a subsequently imposed condition. The impugned order forfeiting the allotment money was quashed, and YEIDA was directed to refund the registration money to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, as an heir of the original tenure holder whose land was acquired, was eligible to apply under the 'farmers category' for allotment of a residential plot, considering the provisions of Clause 15D of the scheme brochure? The petitioner argued that the brochure did not explicitly bar heirs from applying and that his application was accepted and he was successful in the draw, implying completeness. The revenue (YEIDA) contended that only the farmer whose land was acquired could apply, and in cases of death, specific conditions like obtaining no-objection certificates from other heirs were necessary. 2. Whether YEIDA was justified in forfeiting the entire allotment money of Rs. 3,98,520/- based on the petitioner's inability to furnish no-objection certificates from his brothers, particularly when this condition was introduced after the allotment and was not explicitly stated in the original brochure? The petitioner argued that the forfeiture was arbitrary as the condition was imposed subsequently and not part of the brochure at the time of application. The revenue relied on Clause 18(iv) and 18(v) of the brochure, which deal with surrender of allotment.