Nfs Infra Developers Llp, Thru. Its Partner Nisar Ahamad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Housing And Urban Planning Lko. And 2 Others
- Court
- Allahabad High Court
A.F.R.
Reserved on 29.10.2026
Delivered on 12.11.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 5293 of 2026
Nfs Infra Developers Llp, Thru. its Partner Nisar Ahamad
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning
Lko. and 2 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Apoorva Tewari,
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., In Person, Puneet Chandra,
Ratnesh Chandra, Shreyash Agrawal
AND
WRIT - C No. - 5294 of 2026
Uttar Railways Doorsanchar Sahkari Awas Samiti .Ghaziabad Thru. Its
Secy. Jagveer Chaudhary
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning
Lko. and Another
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Apoorva Tewari,
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Puneet Chandra, Ratnesh
Chandra, Shreyash Agrawal
AND
WRIT - C No. - 8995 of 2026
N. R. Karamchari Sahkari Awas Samiti Limited Thru. Secy. Vijendra
Singh
2
WRIC No. - 5293 of 2026
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning
Lko. and 2 Others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Apoorva Tewari,
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava,
Lalta Prasad Mishra, Ratnesh
Chandra
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.
(Delivered by Hon’ble Amitabh Kumar Rai, J)
1. Heard Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur and Sri Upendra Nath Mishra,
learned Senior Advocates assisted by Sri Apoorva Tewari, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for U.P. Avas Evam
Vikas Parishad and learned Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Writ-C No.5293 of 2026 has been filed seeking the following
reliefs :
(i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the order dated 20.09.2025 passed
by Uttar Pradesh Housing and Development Board as
contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.
(ii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari to quash resolution no. 271/7 passed in
271" meeting of the Uttar Pradesh Housing and
Development Board held on 29.04.2025 and
resolution no. 274/34 passed in at and in its 274th
meeting of the Uttar Pradesh Housing and
Development Board held on 26.12.2025, in so far as it
pertains to the petitioner, as contained in Annexure
No. 23 and 3 respectively to the writ petition.
3
WRIC No. - 5293 of 2026
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the Housing Commissioner to
allow the application for purchase of additional FAR
and grant consequential revision of building plan
expeditiously.
3. Writ-C No.5294 of 2026 has been filed seeking the following
reliefs :
(i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari to quash resolution no. 271/7 passed in
271st meeting of the Uttar Pradesh Housing and
Development Board held on 29.04.2025 and
resolution no. 274/34 passed in at and in its 274th
meeting of the Uttar Pradesh Housing and
Development Board held on 26.12.2025, in so far as
it pertains to the petitioner, as contained in Annexure
No. 1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition
4. Writ-C No.8995 of 2026 has been filed seeking the following
reliefs :
(i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari to quash resolution no. 271/7 passed in
271 meeting of the Uttar Pradesh Housing and
Development Board held on 29.04.2025 and
resolution no. 274/34 passed in at and in its 274th
meeting of the Uttar Pradesh Housing and
Development Board held on 26.12.2025, in so far as
it pertains to the petitioner, as contained in Annexure
No. I and 2 respectively to the writ petition;
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 and 3
to consider and decide the application for sanction
of building plan dated. 13.05.2024 within any fixed
reasonable period of time on the same terms as
sanction has been granted to M/s Adarsh Nagar
Pragitisheel Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. vide order
dated 06.10.2025;
5. Brief facts of the case are that the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad
(hereinafter referred to as the “Parishad”) for the purposes of its
Siddharth Vihar Yojna (Delhi Bulandshahr Bhumi Vikas Evam
Grahsthan Yojna) (hereinafter referred to as the “Scheme”) in Ghaziabad
4
WRIC No. - 5293 of 2026
acquired the land by issuing notifications under Sections 28 and 32 of
the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter
referred to as the “Act of 1965”) while invoking the urgency clause
under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as applicable and
incorporated in the Act of 1965.
6. However, owing to large-scale protests by the tenure holders and
numerous litigations challenging the acquisition proceedings, the
Parishad entered into negotiations with the tenure holders. In terms of
the policy dated 04.03.2014, namely, U.P. State Urban Housing and
Rehabilitation Policy, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the “Policy,
2014”), which provided that if the landowners agreed to pool their land,
they would be entitled to a minimum of 25% of the land without
payment of any development charges, an agreement was entered into
between the Parishad and 22 tenure holders on 16.03.2016 and a
settlement agreement was executed accordingly.
7. Subsequently, these 22 tenure holders incorporated a limited
liability partnership under the provisions of the Limited Liability
Partnership Act, 2008 on 06.07.2016 in the name of N.F.S.
Infradevelopers LLP (the petitioner in Writ-C No. 5293 of 2026)
(hereinafter referred to as the “first petitioner”). Thereafter, a sale deed
in respect of the land was executed by the Parishad in favour of the first
petitioner in accordance with the Policy, 2014.
8. On the other hand, a Housing Co-operative Society, namely, Uttar
Railway Doorsanchar Sahkari Awas Samiti (the petitioner in Writ-C
No.5294 of 2026) (hereinafter referred to as the “second petitioner”) also
entered into an agreement with the Parishad in terms of the Government
Order dated 22.10.2002 for the adjustment of the acquired land of
Housing Co-operative Societies under the Scheme.
9. Litigation involving the cooperative societies was also pending
before the High Court, wherein an order of status quo was operating in
Writ-C No.9857 of 2015 in respect of the land of the second petitioner,
which had been acquired by the Parishad. In accordance with the
5
WRIC No. - 5293 of 2026
Government policy for adjustment of land as contained in the
Government Order dated 22.10.2002, 50% of the undeveloped land was
allocated in favour of the second petitioner by the Housing
Commissioner vide order dated 23.02.2017. Subsequently, the Parishad
entered into an agreement with the second petitioner on 04.03.2017 and
a sale deed was thereafter executed by the Parishad in favour of the
second petitioner on 18.03.2019.
10. Similarly, the State Government entered into an agreement with
another Housing Co-operative Society, namely, N.R. Karamchari
Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. (the petitioner in Writ-C No.8995 of 2026)
(hereinafter referred to as the “third petitioner”) in terms of the
Government policy contained in the Government Order dated
22.10.2002. Pursuant thereto, Housing Commissioner allocated 50% of
the undeveloped land in favour of the third petitioner on 05.09.2016,
which culminated in an agreement between the Parishad and the third
petitioner.
11. Subsequently, a registered agreement was also executed on
29.06.2021, wherein it was recorded that a certain amount had been paid
towards development charges and the remaining amount was to be paid
in eight quarterly instalments. Thereafter, the Parishad raised a demand
for an adjustment fee, which was not part of the registered agreement
dated 29.06.2021. Aggrieved thereby, the third petitioner filed Writ-C
No.14883 of 2024 before this Court, wherein an interim order was
passed staying the demand notice issued by the Parishad towards the
adjustment fee.
12. Since the Parishad did not execute sale deed in favour of the third
petitioner, the latter was constrained to file Writ-C No.17941 of 2025,
wherein vide order dated 29.05.2025, the Parishad was directed to decide
the representation dated 21.04.2025. Pursuant to the aforesaid order
dated 29.05.2025 passed in Writ-C No.17941 of 2025, the representation
submitted by the third petitioner was rejected vide order dated
07.10.2025 citing the pendency of Writ-C No.14883 of 2024 before this
Court.
6
WRIC No. - 5293 of 2026
13. The necessity of filing the instant writ petitions by the first, second
and third petitioners arose as a consequence of a complaint dated
25.05.2022 submitted by one Pt. Sunil Bharala, President, Labour
Welfare Board, Government of Uttar Pradesh raising allegations
regarding the transfer of land by the Parishad to various cooperative
societies. Pursuant to the said complaint, the State Government, vide
letter dated 28.05.2022, constituted a three-member committee
comprising officers of the Board to inquire into the allegations made in
the complaint dated 25.05.2022 concerning the transfer of land to the
cooperative societies.
14. Thereafter, another complaint was submitted by the same person,
namely, Pt. Sunil Bharala, wherein allegations were also levelled against
the first petitioner, which was not a Housing Co-operative Society
whereas his earlier complaint was confined only to Housing Cooperative
Societies. The three-member committee, constituted vide Government
Order dated 28.05.2022 to inquire into the aforesaid complaint,
submitted its report dated 26.07.2022 recording a finding that the
allegations made against the cooperative societies were unsubstantiated.
15. Thereafter, in view of the subsequent complaint dated 24.07.2022,
State Government, vide order dated 05.08.2022, constituted a four-
member enquiry committee under the Chairmanship of the Divisional
Commissioner, Meerut to examine the allegations raised therein. Upon
examining the matter, the said four-member committee submitted its
report dated 24.02.2023 recording a finding that no adverse material was
found in respect of the land sold to the petitioner.
16. Subsequently, vide communication dated 22.03.2023, State
Government directed the Housing Commissioner to examine the report
dated 24.02.2023 submitted by the Divisional Commissioner, Meerut
and submit a report thereon. However, Housing Commissioner, vide
report dated 17.08.2023, took a contrary view and asserted that the
petitioner had been allotted land in excess of its entitlement.
7
WRIC No. - 5293 of 2026
17. On the basis of the aforesaid report dated 17.08.2023, State
Government, vide letter dated 23.08.2023, required the Housing
Commissioner to clarify whether the land allocated under the Scheme
was developed or undeveloped. The Housing Commissioner submitted
its reply to the said communication on 14.09.2023.
18. Thereafter, a hearing was conducted by the State Government on
19.10.2023 during which the cooperative housing societies made their
representations specifically stating that the land allotted to them was
externally developed but internally undeveloped. Subsequently, vide
letter dated 22.11.2023, State Government required the Parishad to
clarify whether any internal development work had been carried out by it
on the plots allotted to the societies. However, no reply to the said
communication was furnished by the Parishad.
19. On 17.01.2024, State Government convened a meeting in the
matter, wherein the Parishad sought an additional period of 15 days to
furnish its response. Accordingly, the next meeting was scheduled for
27.02.2024. However, neither did any officer of the Parishad attended
the said meeting nor was any reply furnished to the query raised by the
State Government vide its letter dated 22.11.2023.
20. Thereafter, State Government, vide communication dated
07.03.2024, directed the Housing Commissioner to examine the reports
dated 26.07.2022 and 24.02.2023 and take a decision within one month
after affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected persons. It was
further directed that in case any clarification was required for arriving at
a final decision, the same could be sought from the State Government.
However, for the aforesaid purpose, Housing Commissioner proceeded
to constitute a five-member committee comprising officials of the
Parishad.
21. The aforesaid five-member committee submitted its report to the
Housing Commissioner on 19.09.2024, wherein no adverse finding
whatsoever was recorded against any of the petitioners. Subsequently, on
06.11.2024, the Housing Commissioner raised certain additional queries
8
WRIC No. - 5293 of 2026
on the order sheet. In order to address the said queries, the five-member
committee convened a further meeting and prepared a report in the form
of minutes of the meeting. The minutes of the said meeting dated
06.11.2024 were thereafter submitted to the Housing Commissioner on
23.12.2024.
22. On 29.04.2025, the Housing Commissioner placed the reports
st
dated 19.09.2024 and 23.12.2024 before the 271 meeting of the Board
as Agenda Item No.271/7 whereupon the Board proceeded to constitute
yet another committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Town and
Country Planner. In the meantime, on 15.07.2025, a report submitted by
the Additional Housing Commissioner (Co-operative Section) to the
Deputy Housing Commissioner (Land) recorded that no infirmity was
found in respect of the permission granted under Rules 200 and 397 of
the U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968. Thereafter, the committee
chaired by the Chief Town and Country Planner re-examined the entire
matter and vide its report dated 19.07.2025, categorically recorded that
the report dated 17.08.2023 submitted by the Housing Commissioner
was incorrect and was based on a fundamentally erroneous factual
premise.
23. However, despite the aforesaid findings, the report of the Chief
Town and Country Planner along with the report dated 15.07.2025 was
nd
placed before the 272 meeting of the Board held on 22.07.2025 as
Agenda Item No.272/2, wherein the Board deferred consideration of the
matter to its next meeting. The aforesaid reports were again placed
rd
before the 273 meeting of the Board held on 09.10.2025 as Agenda
Item No.273/2. However, once again, the Board deferred consideration
of the matter to its next meeting. Thereafter, the said reports were placed
th
before the 274 meeting of the Board held on 26.12.2025 as Agenda
Item No.274/34, wherein the Board directed that a clear proposal be
submitted in the light of the enquiry report. However, no proposal
th
concerning the matter was placed before the 275 meeting of the Board
held on 29.04.2026.
9
WRIC No. - 5293 of 2026
24. Even thereafter, vide letter dated 19.05.2026, the Additional
Housing Commissioner issued a communication to the Additional
Housing Commissioner/Additional Registrar (Co-operative Section)
directing him to conduct yet another enquiry in respect of each of the
Housing Co-operative Societies. Pursuant to the said communication, a
report was submitted by the Additional Housing Commissioner on
22.05.2026.
25. Subsequently, on 06.06.2026 the Additional Housing
Commissioner constituted yet another six-member committee to conduct
an enquiry into the land transferred to the first and second petitioners.
Thereafter, vide order dated 11.06.2026, the Additional Housing
Commissioner directed that the issues referred in the report dated
17.08.2023 be examined. Pursuant to the said order, an enquiry report
was submitted by the Additional Housing Commissioner (Co-operative
Section) on 23.06.2026. Furthermore, pursuant to the order dated
06.06.2026, another enquiry report was submitted on 29.06.2026.
26. The aforesaid sequence of events narrates the manner in which
successive enquiries were conducted, none of which resulted in any
adverse finding with respect to the allotment of land to the first, second
or third petitioner (hereinafter collectively referred to as the
“petitioners”) except for the report dated 27.08.2023 submitted by the
Housing Commissioner, wherein it was alleged that excess land had been
allotted to the petitioners. However, even this finding was specifically
rejected by the committee headed by the Chief Town and Country
Planner in its report dated 17.09.2025.
27. In the light of the aforesaid factual background, the Parishad
passed an order dated 20.09.2025 rejecting the application submitted by
the first petitioner for the purchase of additional purchasable Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) and the consequential approval of the building plan in
respect of the real estate project being developed on Plot No.8-GH-01,
Sector-B, Siddharth Vihar, Ghaziabad. The ground for such rejection was
that the findings recorded in the enquiry reports to the effect that the
process of sale of land to the petitioners was correct and bona fide, had
10
WRIC No. - 5293 of 2026
nd
not yet been accepted by the Board in its 272 meeting held on
22.07.2025, wherein consideration of the matter had been deferred.
Accordingly, the Parishad took the view that the first petitioner's
application for the purchase of additional FAR and consequential
revision of the building plan could not be accepted at that stage.
28. The matter was thereafter deferred in the successive meetings of
the Board held on 09.10.2025 (273rd meeting) and 26.12.2025 (274th
meeting). Furthermore, in the 275th meeting of the Board, held on
29.04.2026, the matter was not even placed for consideration. Such
continued inaction on the part of the Parishad suggests that the first
petitioner was being subjected to undue harassment, thereby compelling
it to file Writ-C No. 5293 of 2026.
The second petitioner, being aggrieved by the repeated enquiries
conducted in respect of Plot No.3/S P-3, Sector-3, Siddharth Vihar,
Ghaziabad, which had been sold to it vide sale deed dated 18.03.2019,
filed Writ-C No.5294 of 2026 challenging Resolution No.271/7 passed
in the 271st meeting of the Board held on 29.04.2025 and Resolution
No. 274/34 passed in the 274th meeting of the Board held on
26.12.2025. By the aforesaid resolutions, yet another four-member
committee was constituted to conduct an enquiry into the allotment of
plots in lieu of the acquired land despite the fact that the matter had
attained finality upon execution of the sale deed and no adverse findings
had been recorded in the earlier enquiries.
The third petitioner also filed Writ-C No.8995 of 2026 seeking
similar reliefs including quashing of Resolution Nos.271/7 and 274/34
passed by the Board being aggrieved by the repeated enquiries as well as
a direction for sanction of its building plan dated 13.05.2024.
29. Learned counsel for the petitioners have advanced detailed
arguments, the gist of which is summarised hereinbelow:
(i) The first petitioner is covered by the U.P. State Urban Housing
and Rehabilitation Policy, 2014, framed by the State Government. The
aforesaid Policy was adopted by the Board of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas
11
WRIC No. - 5293 of 2026
Parishad in its 236th meeting, vide Agenda Item No. 236/8 dated
31.05.2016.
(ii) The Government Order dated 22.10.2002 is applicable to the cases
of the second and third petitioners. The relevant provisions of the said
Government Order are reproduced hereinbelow:
(a) As per Clause 2(3)(a), the petitioners were entitled to developed
land equivalent to 50% of the acquired land without payment of any cost
towards the land. However, they were required to pay development
charges at the prevalent rates, along with adjustment charges equivalent
to 10% of the prevalent sale price.
(b) In the alternative, under Clauses 3 and 3.2 of the Government
Order dated 22.10.2002, the petitioners were entitled to receive
undeveloped land equivalent to 80% of the acquired land without
payment of any cost towards the land. However, they were required to
pay development charges at the prevalent rates. No adjustment charges
were leviable in respect of undeveloped land.
(c) As per Clause 4, the expression “developed land” means land that
has been developed both internally and externally, subdivided into
individual plots in accordance with a layout approved by the competent
authority, and provided with external infrastructure facilities such as
roads, drainage, water supply, sewage disposal, electricity supply, parks
and open spaces, landscaping, and other community amenities.
(d) As per Clause 4, the expression “undeveloped land” means
externally developed block land where provisions exist for external
infrastructure facilities, such as Master Plan/Zonal Plan roads, main
drainage channels, trunk sewers and sewage disposal systems,
waterworks, water rising mains, 33 KVA substations and high-tension
lines for electricity supply, regional parks, and public amenities, but
where the land has not been subdivided into individual plots and internal
infrastructure facilities have not been provided.
30. The arguments advanced on behalf of the first petitioner are as
follows :
12
WRIC No. - 5293 of 2026
(i) The sole issue raised by the respondent in respect of the land
transferred to the first petitioner is that, on the date of execution of the
sale deed, the award in respect of the acquired land had already been
made. However, as per the report dated 06.11.2024, although the awards
had been made, the tenure holders had not accepted the compensation.
Accordingly, the land was transferred to the first petitioner by way of a
registered sale deed dated 19.12.2016, upon acceptance of the agreed
development charges.
(ii) After execution of the sale deed, the Parishad has no authority
whatsoever to revisit the transaction of sale or reopen the said issue in
any manner.
(iii) The Parishad is conducting repeated enquiries into an issue over
which it has no jurisdiction or authority to exercise any control after
having executed the sale deed, whereby the first petitioner became the
absolute owner of the plot in question. Thus, the continuation of such
enquiries is wholly without authority of law and is arbitrary and mala
fide.
(iv) The Parishad has raised various issues concerning the alleged
excess land transferred under the Government Order dated 22.10.2002.
However, the said Government Order is not applicable to the first
petitioner, as it applies exclusively to cooperative societies. Similarly,
compliance with Rules 200 and 397 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies
Rules, 1968, is not an issue in the case of first petiitioner.
(v) Further, the petitioner has sought parity in the matter of sanction
of additional purchasable FAR, which may be granted on the same terms
and conditions as those sanctioned in favour of M/s Adarsh Nagar
Pragatisheel Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. vide order dated 06.10.2025.
31. The arguments advanced on behalf of second petitioner and third
petitioner are as follows :
(i) The allegation that the petitioners were allotted land in excess of
their entitlement under the Government Order dated 22.10.2002 is
incorrect for the following reasons:
13
WRIC No. - 5293 of 2026
(a) The findings recorded in the report dated 19.09.2024 clearly state
that the societies were allotted 50% of the undeveloped land in
accordance with the definition provided under the Government Order
dated 22.10.2002 and that there is no infirmity in the allotment of land.
(b) In the report dated 06.11.2024, which was submitted on
23.12.2024, it was found that the housing cooperative societies had been
allotted land in accordance with the settlement entered into between the
U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad and the cooperative societies. It was
further observed that only 50% of the undeveloped land had been
allotted to the cooperative societies and no irregularity had been
committed in the process of allotment.
(c) In the report dated 19.07.2025 submitted by the committee headed
by the Chief Town and Country Planner, it was categorically recorded
that only 50% of the undeveloped land was allotted to the societies as
against their entitlement of 80%. Accordingly, no excess land was
transferred nor was any financial loss caused to U.P. Awas Evam Vikas
Parishad.
(ii) With regard to the allegation that certain payments as recorded in
the letter dated 17.08.2023 remain due from the petitioners, it has been
submitted that the cooperative societies have duly paid the entire
development charges in accordance with the demands raised by the
respondents.
(iii) Furthermore, with regard to the payment of the Samayojan Shulk
it has been submitted that the second petitioner, being aggrieved by the
demand notice dated 30.12.2023 issued by the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas
Parishad, filed Writ-C No.11203 of 2024 before this Court, wherein vide
order dated 05.04.2024, this Court stayed the demand raised under the
aforesaid notice.
(iv) The demand notice dated 30.12.2023 pertaining to the levy of
Samayojan Shulk upon the third petitioner was challenged by the said
society by filing Writ-C No.14883 of 2024 before this Court. The
14
WRIC No. - 5293 of 2026
demand raised under the aforesaid notice was also stayed by this Court
vide order dated 20.05.2024.
(v) With regard to the allegation that the cooperative societies were
allotted developed land, it has been submitted that the report dated
19.09.2024 clearly states that the societies were allotted 50% of the
undeveloped land in accordance with the definition provided under the
Government Order dated 22.10.2002. The report dated 06.11.2024,
which was submitted on 23.12.2024, also indicates that only 50% of the
undeveloped land was transferred to the Housing Co-operative Societies.
(vi) The continuation of the enquiry against the cooperative societies is
wholly untenable. The projects undertaken by the cooperative societies
are being denied statutory clearances. Accordingly, the Board is liable to
be directed to process the pending applications in accordance with law,
without raising any unreasonable demands against the cooperative
societies.
32. The rival submissions fall for consideration.
33. Learned counsel appearing for the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad
led by Sri Gaurav Mehrotra and assisted by Sri Ratnesh Chandra,
Advocate, on the other hand, advanced the following submissions:
(i) Any direction issued by this Court for the grant of additional FAR
or revision of the building plan before these questions are answered
would amount to placing a seal of approval on a transaction that the
Board has been specifically directed to examine. Such a direction would
also pre-empt the decision that the Board is yet to take.
(ii) The petitioners' insistence that this Court interfere with the
enquiry process with a view to scuttling the same is unwarranted and
untenable. A party that is confident of the legality of its title and
construction has nothing to fear from an examination by the competent
authority, provided that due notice and an opportunity of hearing are
afforded. The anxiety to forestall the enquiry speaks for itself.
(iii) The enquiry is neither an internal nor a self-generated exercise
undertaken by respondent No.2, rather, it is being conducted in
15
WRIC No. - 5293 of 2026
compliance with the directions issued by the State Government in
exercise of its supervisory control over the Board.
(iv) Section 92 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam,
falling under Chapter X ( “External Control”) obligates the Board to
furnish such information to the State Government as may be directed by
it. Section 92(2) empowers the State Government to issue such
directions to the Board as it considers necessary or expedient for
carrying out the purposes of the Act, “and it shall thereupon be the duty
of the Board to comply with such directions”. Compliance with such
directions is mandatory. Accordingly, the Parishad cannot be faulted for
conducting an enquiry that the State Government has directed it to
undertake. Further, the petitioners, having not challenged the said
direction, cannot seek an order from this Court restraining its
implementation.
(v) The instant matter is presently at the stage of consideration of the
reports by the Board. The reports submitted by the committees are
merely fact-finding and recommendatory in nature and as such, are not
binding on the Board. They do not, by themselves, determine any right
or liability.
(vi) It transpires from a perusal of the record that while the report
dated 17.08.2023 submitted by the then Housing Commissioner and the
letter dated 14.09.2023 record serious prima facie findings, the other
reports take a different view on certain issues. As such, resolving these
conflicting findings is precisely the function of the Board.
34. The State Government, with a view to protecting the interests of
registered Housing Co-operative Societies whose lands had been
acquired for development schemes undertaken by the Parishad and other
development authorities, formulated a policy providing for the
adjustment of their land within the concerned development scheme. In
furtherance thereof, the Government Order dated 22.10.2002 was issued,
laying down the policy and the conditions governing the adjustment of
land belonging to registered cooperative housing societies. The
16
WRIC No. - 5293 of 2026
underlying object of the policy was to ensure that such societies, which
had acquired land for providing residential accommodation to their
members, were not deprived of the benefits of their land merely on
account of its subsequent acquisition for a development scheme.
35. Subsequently, State Government also formulated a policy dated
04.03.2014 providing for the pooling of land by landowners under which
they were entitled to the allotment of a minimum of 25% of the land,
subject to the conditions stipulated therein without payment of
development charges. The policy was intended to provide a more
participatory and equitable mechanism for planned urban development
by associating the original landowners with the development process and
ensuring that they received an appropriate share in the developed land.
36. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the allotment of land in
their favour was made by the Parishad in accordance with the applicable
policy framework, taking into consideration the acquisition of their
original land and their entitlement to adjustment in terms of the
Government Order dated 22.10.2002 and the Policy dated 04.03.2014.
The allotment was not merely an administrative proposal or an inchoate
arrangement. Rather, the process culminated in the execution of
registered sale deeds in favour of the first and second petitioners, thereby
formally transferring the allotted land to them. In the case of the third
petitioner, a registered agreement was executed setting out the terms of
allotment of land and the payments to be made in respect thereof.
37. It appears that notwithstanding the aforesaid allotment and the
execution of registered sale deeds and a registered agreement, certain
objections were subsequently raised on the basis of a complaint
concerning the manner in which the land had been adjusted and
transferred in favour of the petitioners. Consequently, the matter was
subjected to enquiries at different levels and by various authorities. The
petitioners were repeatedly called upon to furnish information and
documents and to explain the circumstances in which the land had been
allotted and transferred in their favour.
17
WRIC No. - 5293 of 2026
38. The records available with the writ petitions indicate that none of
the enquiries undertaken by the authorities brought forth any material
suggesting that the allotment or transfer of land was contrary to the
Government Order dated 22.10.2002 or the subsequent Policy dated
04.03.2014. The adverse report dated 17.08.2023 submitted by the
Housing Commissioner was also subsequently rejected by the committee
headed by the Chief Town and Country Planner in its report dated
19.07.2025. No finding of fraud, misrepresentation, collusion or
violation of any prescribed condition was recorded against any of the
petitioner-societies. No proceedings were initiated for cancellation of the
registered sale deeds or the registered agreement executed in favour of
the third petitioner, nor was any competent authority called upon to
adjudicate upon their validity.
39. The first petitioner submitted its layout plan and sought approval
for the permissible additional FAR in accordance with the applicable
planning norms and policy provisions. However, the Parishad did not
proceed to grant the requisite approval. Instead, the matter continued to
be kept pending on the pretext that certain aspects relating to the original
allotment and transfer of the land required further examination.
40. The aforesaid conduct of the Parishad is wholly arbitrary,
unreasonable and contrary to the principles of fairness governing the
exercise of administrative power. Once the Parishad itself had allotted
the land in favour of the petitioners, accepted the transactions and
executed registered sale deeds and a registered agreement, it could not
indefinitely question the very basis of such transfers through successive
enquiries, particularly when none of those enquiries had resulted in any
adverse finding. The petitioners cannot be made to suffer on account of
administrative indecision or internal differences within the Parishad.
41. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Parishad
suggest that successive enquiries have been conducted pursuant to the
directions issued by the State Government. This, in itself, indicates that
the Parishad has been compelled to undertake successive enquiries
despite the fact that the enquiries conducted by it have not resulted in
18
WRIC No. - 5293 of 2026
any adverse finding, except for the report dated 17.08.2023 submitted by
the Housing Commissioner, which was subsequently rejected by the
committee headed by the Chief Town and Country Planner in its report
dated 19.07.2025.
42. On the other hand, the State Government has not even filed a
counter affidavit in any of the writ petitions, despite repeated
opportunities having been afforded to it. Even at the stage of arguments,
the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of U.P.
has not advanced any submissions to justify or defend the action of the
State Government in issuing directions to the Parishad for conducting
successive enquiries. Such conduct cannot be appreciated by this Court,
particularly in the backdrop of the fact that, as indicated hereinabove, the
successive enquiries have not resulted in any adverse finding with regard
to the allotment of land to the petitioners.
43. Learned counsel appearing for the Parishad has sought to justify
its action by submitting that the authorities are entitled to examine the
correctness of the original allotment and transfer of land. It has further
been submitted that approval of the layout plan and grant of additional
FAR cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as the Parishad is required to
ensure that the allotment and subsequent development are in conformity
with the applicable policies, planning regulations and other statutory
requirements.
44. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that a statutory
development authority or housing board is entitled and indeed obliged to
ensure that allotments and transfers made by it are in accordance with
the governing statute, applicable Government Orders and policies
framed by the State Government. It is equally well settled that no person
can claim entitlement to development permission in disregard of the
applicable statutory planning regulations.
45. However, the exercise of such power is necessarily subject to the
limitations flowing from the principles of fairness, reasonableness and
non-arbitrariness embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
19
WRIC No. - 5293 of 2026
The mere existence of administrative power to enquire into a transaction
cannot be construed as conferring unrestricted authority to repeatedly
reopen a concluded matter in the absence of any fresh material or legally
sustainable justification.
46. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the original land
belonging to the petitioners was acquired by the Parishad for the
implementation of its housing scheme. It is also not in dispute that the
Parishad proceeded to allot land to the petitioners in lieu of the acquired
land, and the transactions ultimately culminated in the execution of
registered sale deeds in favour of the first and second petitioners and a
registered agreement in favour of the third petitioner.
47. The Government Order dated 22.10.2002 was specifically
intended to provide a mechanism for the adjustment of land belonging to
registered cooperative housing societies within the development schemes
of the Parishad and other development authorities. The policy
contemplated the consideration of claims of such societies in accordance
with the eligibility conditions and modalities prescribed therein. The
subsequent Policy dated 04.03.2014, providing for the pooling of land
and allotment of a minimum of 25% of the land to landowners without
payment of development charges, further reflects the policy orientation
of the State Government towards ensuring a fair and equitable share for
landowners in the process of planned development.
48. The aforesaid policies have to be understood in the context of their
underlying objectives. They are intended to facilitate planned
development while protecting the legitimate interests of those whose
land is utilised for that purpose. The Parishad, being an instrumentality
of the State, is expected to implement these policies in their true spirit
and not to adopt an approach that frustrates the very objectives for which
they have been formulated.
49. It is significant that the Parishad, after examining the claim of the
petitioners, itself proceeded to allot the land and execute registered sale
deed and registered agreement. The transaction, therefore, cannot be
20
WRIC No. - 5293 of 2026
treated as a mere proposal or a provisional administrative arrangement
which remained incomplete. The execution of the registered sale deed in
favour of first petitioner and second petitioner constitute material
subsequent event which cannot be ignored while considering the rights
and obligations of the parties. Similarly, the execution of registered
agreement by Parishad in favour of third petitioner binds Parishad with
the terms and conditions of agreement.
50. No doubt, the mere execution of a registered sale deed and
registered agreement would not, by itself, immunise the transaction from
scrutiny if it is established that the same was vitiated by fraud, want of
authority, violation of a statutory prohibition or any other legally
recognised ground. However, in the facts of the present case, the
Parishad has not been able to point out any such material. On the
contrary, the successive enquiries conducted by the authorities have not
culminated in any adverse finding against the petitioners.
51. It would be apt, at this stage, to refer to the findings recorded by
the Committee headed by the Chief Town and Country Planner in its
report dated 19.07.2025. With regard to the allegation that land had been
allotted to the petitioners in excess of their entitlement, the Committee
considered the matter in detail and concluded that the Housing Co-
operative Societies were entitled to 80% of the undeveloped land as per
the agreements entered into by the Housing Co-operative Societies with
the Parishad. However, they were granted only 50% of the undeveloped
land along with the benefit of permission to utilize the land for group
housing subject to payment of 1.5 times the development charges. Thus,
the allegation regarding allotment of excess land to the Housing Co-
operative Societies was rejected by the Committee in its report dated
19.07.2025.
52. With regard to the allegation against the first petitioner concerning
payment of stamp duty under land pooling, the Committee concluded
that in its 236th meeting, the Board had authorized the Housing
Commissioner to take a decision for providing 25% developed land to
the first petitioner under the Policy, 2014. The Committee took note of
21
WRIC No. - 5293 of 2026
the fact that the Housing Commissioner had been authorized to take such
a decision under Serial No.8 of the resolution passed in the 236th
meeting of the Board. In terms of the said authorization, the Housing
Commissioner on 01.08.2016 allotted 29,675 square metres of land out
of the total land area of 1,18,700 square metres acquired from Kishan
Sangharsh Samiti in the acquisition proceedings as developed land
without levying any development or adjustment charges.
53. The report further records that the aforesaid decision was taken by
the Housing Commissioner on the ground that the tenure-holders were
not accepting the awarded compensation and in order to put an end to
their protest and agitation, the said decision was taken. The allegation
regarding excess allotment of land to the first petitioner was also found
to be incorrect by the Committee in its report dated 19.07.2025.
54. The record further reveals that on the basis of a complaint made
by one Pt. Sunil Bharala, President, Labour Welfare Board, Government
of Uttar Pradesh, repeated enquiries were conducted in the following
manner:
(a) State Government, vide order dated 28.05.2022, instituted the first
enquiry, which submitted its report on 26.07.2022 wherein the
allegations of illegal allotment of land to the petitioners and other
Housing Co-operative Societies were found to be incorrect.
(b) State Government, vide another order dated 05.08.2022, instituted
a second enquiry, which submitted its report on 24.02.2023, wherein it
was concluded that the allegation of illegal allotment of land to the first
petitioner was unfounded.
(c) State Government, vide order dated 07.03.2024, constituted
another Committee headed by the Additional Housing Commissioner-
cum-Secretary to analyze and submit a report with reference to the report
dated 26.07.2022 submitted by the three-member Committee with regard
to the Housing Co-operative Societies as well as the report dated
24.02.2023 submitted by the Commissioner, Meerut. The said
Committee submitted its third enquiry report on 19.09.2024. After
22
WRIC No. - 5293 of 2026
conducting a detailed analysis and hearing the stakeholders, the
Committee concluded that no illegality had been committed in the
allotment of land to the Housing Co-operative Societies.
(d) The Committee constituted vide order dated 07.03.2024 headed by
the Additional Housing Commissioner-cum-Secretary submitted its
fourth enquiry report dated 06.11.2024, wherein with regard to the first
petitioner, it was concluded that no illegality had been committed in the
allotment of land to the first petitioner in terms of the Policy, 2014. It
was observed that under compelling circumstances, the Board, in its
236th meeting held on 21.05.2016, had authorized the Housing
Commissioner to take an appropriate decision as the tenure-holders were
not accepting the awarded compensation. Accordingly, the matter was
settled by allotting 25% of the developed land to the tenure-holders in
terms of the Policy, 2014.
(e) The fifth enquiry report was submitted on 19.07.2025 by the
Committee headed by the Chief Town and Country Planner, which
concluded that no illegality had been committed in the allotment of land
to the petitioners.
The findings recorded in all five enquiry reports suggest that there
is no adverse material to indicate that the land was illegally or
improperly allotted to the petitioners.
55. The Court is unable to appreciate as to how, in the absence of any
adverse material emerging from the enquiries already conducted, the
Parishad can continue to keep the application of first petitioner for
approval of the layout plan and additional FAR pending on the same set
of allegations and apprehensions. An enquiry is intended to ascertain
facts and arrive at a conclusion. It cannot become an endless
administrative exercise, with the consequence that the rights and
legitimate interests of a citizen or an institution remain indefinitely
suspended.
56. The successive enquiries, in the circumstances of the present case,
have ceased to serve any discernible administrative purpose. Once the
23
WRIC No. - 5293 of 2026
relevant authorities have examined the matter and no infirmity in the
allotment or transfer has been established, the Parishad is required to
proceed on the basis of the existing record and take an appropriate
decision on the pending applications in accordance with law and stop
harassment of petitioners in name of successive enquiries as a hanging
sword of damocles.
57. The Parishad cannot be permitted to keep the petitioners in a state
of perpetual uncertainty by repeatedly raising doubts about a transaction
which it had itself undertaken and completed. Administrative authorities
are expected to act consistently and cannot be allowed to approbate and
reprobate according to the changing perceptions of the officers
occupying different positions at different points of time.
58. The Court is conscious of the fact that the doctrine of legitimate
expectation does not confer an indefeasible right to a particular allotment
or to sanction of a building plan contrary to statutory provisions.
Nevertheless, where an authority has acted upon a declared policy, has
itself undertaken the process of allotment and has executed a registered
conveyance in favour of the beneficiary, the beneficiary is entitled to
expect that the authority will not, without any cogent reason or fresh
material, frustrate the consequences of its own action.
59. The principle of legitimate expectation, in such circumstances,
operates in conjunction with the constitutional requirement of fairness in
administrative action. The Parishad was, therefore, under an obligation
to deal with the petitioner's subsequent applications objectively and in
accordance with the policy and planning regulations applicable to the
land.
60. The Court is also unable to overlook the fact that the petitioners
have been compelled to face repeated enquiries over a considerable
period, despite having obtained a registered sale deed and registered
agreement from the very authority which is now withholding the
consequential development permissions. Such conduct has the effect of
placing an unreasonable burden upon the petitioners and its members,
24
WRIC No. - 5293 of 2026
who have been deprived of the opportunity to proceed with the intended
housing development for reasons which have not been substantiated by
any adverse finding.
61. The action of the Parishad, therefore, cannot be sustained merely
on the ground that the matter continues to be under consideration at its
administrative level. The pendency of an internal enquiry or the desire to
obtain further administrative clarification cannot, by itself, constitute a
valid ground for withholding a decision indefinitely, particularly when
the previous enquiries have not disclosed any illegality or irregularity.
62. It is well settled that an authority exercising statutory or
administrative powers is required to act within a reasonable period.
Unexplained delay, repeated reconsideration of the same issue and
indefinite withholding of consequential benefits, without any
demonstrable justification, may themselves constitute arbitrariness
offending Article 14 of the Constitution.
63. The judgment of this Court in Writ-C No.48641 of 2007 “Ashyana
Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. and others v. State of U.P. and others”, decided
on 30.05.2014, also recognises the policy framework governing
adjustment of land belonging to registered Housing Co-operative
Societies under the Government Order dated 22.10.2002. The decision
emphasises that the entitlement of a society has to be examined in
accordance with the conditions of the applicable policy. The same
principal of law applies in cases covered by the Policy dated 04.03.2014.
The present case, however, stands at a much better footing, inasmuch as
the Parishad has already proceeded to allot the land and execute
registered sale deed in favour of first petitioner and second petiitioner
and registered agreement in favour of third petitioner, and the successive
enquiries thereafter have not disclosed any adverse finding warranting
interference with the completed transaction.
64. It is, therefore, necessary to distinguish between the authority's
power to scrutinise an allotment before its completion and its obligation
to act fairly after having itself completed the transfer. The latter situation
25
WRIC No. - 5293 of 2026
imposes a greater requirement of consistency and justification. The
Parishad cannot treat the petitioners as an unauthorised claimant when
its own acts demonstrate that the petitioners have been recognised as the
transferee of the land.
65. The Court, accordingly, finds that the continued withholding of
approval of the permissible additional FAR and the layout plan, solely on
the basis of successive enquiries concerning the original allotment and
transfer, without any adverse finding emerging therefrom, is arbitrary
and unsustainable.
66. The next question which arises for consideration is whether the
Parishad can withhold approval of the layout plan and permissible
additional FAR on the ground that the original allotment and transfer of
land are still under administrative scrutiny.
67. In the opinion of the Court, the answer has to be in the negative, in
the facts and circumstances of the present case. Once the allotment and
transfer of land have attained finality through execution of registered
sale deeds and in terms of registered agreement and no competent
authority has recorded any finding invalidating the transaction, the
Parishad cannot refuse to consider the consequential applications of the
petitioners merely by keeping alive the issue of the original allotment
through successive enquiries. If the Parishad is of the view that the
original transaction suffers from any illegality, it is incumbent upon it to
identify the precise illegality and take recourse to such remedy as may
be available to it in law. It cannot achieve indirectly, by withholding
development permissions, what it has not been able to establish through
the enquiries undertaken by it.
68. The approval of a layout plan and the grant of additional FAR are,
undoubtedly, subject to the applicable master plan, zoning regulations,
building bye-laws, development norms and other statutory requirements.
The petitioners cannot claim exemption from compliance with such
requirements merely because the land has been transferred in its favour.
However, the Parishad is equally not entitled to refuse or indefinitely
26
WRIC No. - 5293 of 2026
defer consideration of the applications on grounds which have already
been examined and have not been substantiated.
69. The two matters must be kept distinct. The question relating to the
entitlement of the petitioners to the land stands on one footing, whereas
the question relating to the permissible extent of development and
sanction of the layout plan stands on another. The latter has to be
examined independently on the touchstone of the applicable planning
regulations and the policy governing the development of the land.
70. The Parishad cannot conflate the two issues and make the
approval of the layout plan contingent upon repeated reconsideration of
the original allotment, particularly when the allotment has culminated in
a registered conveyance and no adverse finding has been recorded in the
successive enquiries.
71. The Court is also of the view that the Government Order dated
04.03.2014, providing for land pooling and ensuring a minimum 25%
share of land for landowners without development charges, has to be
given due consideration while examining the petitioner's claim, to the
extent that the policy is applicable to the transaction and the land in
question. The Parishad, being an implementing agency of the State's
housing and development policies, cannot disregard the policy
framework or introduce conditions which are not contemplated by the
applicable policy.
72. It is not open to the Parishad to accept the benefit of acquisition of
the petitioner's original land, proceed to allot alternative land in lieu
thereof, execute a registered sale deed and thereafter, without recording
any legally sustainable reason, frustrate the development of the land by
withholding approval of the layout plan and additional FAR.
73. The conduct of the Parishad, as disclosed from the material on
record, is particularly difficult to sustain because the successive
enquiries have not resulted in any adverse conclusion against the
petitioners. The absence of any such finding assumes significance. An
administrative authority cannot continue to act upon mere suspicion or
27
WRIC No. - 5293 of 2026
unsubstantiated apprehensions after the very exercise undertaken to
verify the allegations has failed to substantiate them.
74. The Court is not inclined to permit the Parishad to embark upon
yet another enquiry into the same transaction merely to postpone
consideration of the pending applications of the petitioners relating to
their lay out plan etc. Such a course would amount to perpetuating
administrative uncertainty and would be contrary to the requirement of
fairness and reasonableness in State action.
75. The Court, therefore, holds that the Parishad's action in
withholding consideration and approval of the petitioner's layout plan
and permissible additional FAR etc., on the basis of successive enquiries
which have not disclosed any illegality or irregularity in the allotment
and transfer of land, is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14
of the Constitution of India.
76. It is clarified that this Court is not expressing any opinion on the
precise quantum of FAR permissible on the petitioner's land or on the
technical merits of the layout plan. Those matters fall within the domain
of the competent planning authority and must be determined in
accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and building
regulations. The Parishad, however, cannot decline to exercise its
jurisdiction or postpone a decision on the grounds which have been
found unsustainable hereinabove.
77. For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds that the
petitioners have made out a case for interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The continued inaction of the Parishad in
processing the application of first petitioner for approval of the layout
plan and permissible additional FAR, despite the execution of the
registered sale deed and successive enquiries having failed to establish
any infirmity in the allotment or transfer, cannot be sustained. The
continuation of successive enquiries can also be not allowed.
78. The writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed in the following
terms:
28
WRIC No. - 5293 of 2026
(i) The action of the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad in
repeatedly subjecting the allotment and transfer of land in favour of the
petitioners to successive enquiries, without any adverse finding
emerging from such enquiries, and in consequently withholding
consideration of the petitioner's application for approval of the layout
plan and permissible additional FAR, is declared arbitrary and
unsustainable in law.
(ii) The respondents, particularly the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas
Parishad, are directed not to reopen the issue of entitlement of the
petitioners to the land already transferred in their favour by registered
sale deed and in terms of registered agreement to third petitioner, merely
on the basis of the same allegations or apprehensions which have been
examined in the successive enquiries and have not been substantiated.
(iii) The Parishad is directed to take up and decide the petitioner's
application for approval of the layout plan and grant of permissible
additional FAR on its own merits, in accordance with the applicable
master plan, zoning regulations, building bye-laws and other statutory
requirements, without treating the concluded allotment and transfer of
land as a ground for withholding such approval and also keeping in mind
the approval granted by Parishad to M/s Adarsh Nagar Pragitisheel
Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. vide order dated 06.10.2025.
(iv) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the competent
authority of the Parishad within a period of eight weeks from the date of
production of a certified copy of this judgment.
(v) In the event the layout plan or the claim for additional FAR is found
deficient on any technical or statutory ground, the Parishad shall
communicate the specific deficiencies to the first petitioner by a
reasoned order, affording it an opportunity to remove the same, wherever
permissible in law. The decision shall not be deferred on the pretext of
initiating further enquiries into the original allotment or transfer in the
absence of fresh and legally relevant material.
29
WRIC No. - 5293 of 2026
79. It is further clarified that this judgment shall not be construed as
dispensing with any statutory permission, development charge or any
other requirement which is lawfully applicable to the petitioners.
(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)
November 12, 2026
Ashish Dewal/Mahesh
Digitally signed by :-
MAHESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench