Ravi vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others

AFR
Reserved On: 02.04.2026
Delivered On: 29.05.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 39695 of 2022
Ravi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kabeer Tiwari, Sanjeev Kumar Pandey,
Subhash Chandra Maurya, Sr.
Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : CSC, G.S. Chauhan
Court No. - 4
HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.
(Per: Hon'ble Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.)
1. Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos 3 to 5 is
taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Kabeer Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and 2 and Shri G.S.
Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents no. 3 to 5.
3. The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by the letter
dated 14.11.2022 by means of which the petitioner has been
informed that resolution no. 8 has been cancelled in the meeting
held on 22.10.2022, in pursuance to the said resolution marriage
hall of Zila Panchayat, Jhansi had been allotted in favour of the
petitioner for a tenure of 10 years and an agreement dated
05.12.2013 was executed between the parties.
4. The facts involved in the present controversy are that an auction
notice dated 24.10.2013 was published for running a marriage hall
situated in the campus of Inspection House (Dak Bangla Bhavan),
Jhansi belonging to Zila Panchayat, Jhansi-respondent no.3 for a
tenure of 10 years. The petitioner along with four others had
submitted their bids in pursuance to the tender notice/

WRIC No. 39695 of 2022
2
advertisement. Subsequently vide the letter dated 23.11.2013 the
petitioner was called upon to deposit the requisite stamp duty for
the purposes of execution of an agreement for ten years in respect
of the marriage hall on payment of Rs. 28,12,500/-, in pursuance
thereto the petitioner had deposited the requisite stamp duty.
5. Ultimately an agreement dated 05.12.2023 was executed
between the parties in respect of the marriage hall for a tenure of
ten years on payment of an amount of Rs. 25,12,500/-. Under the
agreement the petitioner was required to deposit the amount due
on six monthly basis and the amount so payable was to increase
on three yearly basis. Further under the agreement, the
construction work was to be carried out by the respondent no.3
panchayat and it was not open for the petitioner to carry out any
structural changes without the consent of the respondent no. 3.
6. However, as the possession of the marriage hall was not
handed over to the petitioner despite substantial passage of time,
even after requests made in that regard. Hence, the petitioner
approached this court by filing Writ C No. 31841 of 2015 and the
said writ petition was disposed of vide the order dated 28.05.2015
directing the Competent Officer of the Zila Pancyayat, Jhansi to
pass appropriate orders and finalize the matter. However, as no
decision was taken by the respondents despite the directions of
this Court, the petitioner was constrained to file Contempt
Application (Civil) No. 5114 of 2015 and the same was disposed of
vide the order dated 24.08.2015, granting one more opportunity of
three weeks to the respondent no.3 to comply with the order dated
28.05.2015.
7. Thereafter the petitioner made repeated efforts wherein, a
request was made to handover the possession of the marriage hall
to the petitioner but the same were of no avail. Subsequently,
Contempt Application (Civil) No. 5031 of 2020 was filed by the
petitioner in pursuance to the order dated 24.08.2015 but the same
was dismissed being barred by time. In the meanwhile the
petitioner on 23.10.2022 came to know through a news paper
article that the respondents were going to cancel the agreement in

WRIC No. 39695 of 2022
3
respect of the marriage hall.
8. Ultimately vide the impugned letter dated 14.11.2022 the
petitioner was informed that the decision had been taken in the
meeting of the respondent no. 3-panchayat held on 22.10.2022 to
cancel resolution no. 8 in pursuance to which the agreement was
executed in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner was also
called upon to collect the amounts deposited in lieu of the
agreement.
9. The petitioner being aggrieved by the letter dated 14.11.2022
has filed the present writ petition.
10. This Court vide the order dated 15.02.2023 had kept the letter
dated 14.11.2022 in abeyance and had further directed that no
third party rights shall be created in respect of the marriage hall in
question. In pursuance to the order dated 15.02.2023 passed by
this Court the petitioner was called upon vide the letter dated
06.03.2023 to submit his offer in respect of the amount the
petitioner was willing to pay in pursuance to the agreement dated
05.12.2023, in view of the fact that the market value of the property
had substantially increased during this while. The petitioner in
response thereto vide the letter dated 15.03.2023 had informed
that the petitioner was willing to pay an enhanced amount of 20%
over and above that was agreed under the agreement.
11. Thereafter the respondent no.3 vide the letter dated
03.04.2023 had agreed to hand over the charge/ possession of the
marriage hall to the petitioner subject to enhancement of the
amount agreed by 20%. However, when the petitioner reached the
marriage hall to take it’s possession, the petitioner came to realise
that the marriage hall was in dilapidated condition requiring major
repairs and it was not possible for the petitioner to operate the
same. Hence, the petitioner vide the letter dated 12.04.2023 had
informed the respondent no. 3 regarding the poor structural
condition of the marriage hall and had requested that the same
should be brought in a working condition and also the fact that the
petitioner would be able to take the possession of the marriage hall
only after the work of repair was completed and to pay the

WRIC No. 39695 of 2022
4
amounts due.
12. Subsequently during the financial year 2023-24 a budget of
Rs.20,17,000/- inclusive of GST was sanctioned for carrying out
the repairs of the marriage hall. Further in this regard, a work order
dated 21.08.2023 was issued for an amount of Rs. 3,08,700/- for
repair of kitchen and another work order dated 27.08.2023 was
issued for an amount of Rs. 13,46,185/- for repair of four flats,
which were a part of the marriage hall.
13. It was only after the marriage hall was repaired and brought in
a functional condition in September, 2025 that the petitioner vide
the letter dated 03.09.2025 had requested that the possession of
the marriage hall be handed over to the petitioner, so as to enable
him to operate the same.
14. Thereafter the respondent no.3 vide the letter dated
27.11.2025 had informed the petitioner that the possession of the
marriage hall had already been handed over to the petitioner, in
pursuance to the letter dated 03.04.2023 and the petitioner was
called upon to deposit the amounts due within a week. The
petitioner in response thereto vide the letter dated 29.11.2025 had
informed the respondent that there was no occasion for the
petitioner to have taken possession of the marriage hall as the
repair works were going on since 22.08.2023.
15. The respondents no.3 vide the letter dated 17.01.2026 has
asked the petitioner to deposit the amounts due, once again
claiming that the possession of the marriage hall was handed over
to the petitioner on 03.04.2023. The petitioner vide the letter dated
28.01.2026 had informed the respondent no.3 that the petitioner
had deposited an amount of Rs. 5,16,000/- on 28.01.2026 and had
further stated that the petitioner had taken charge/ possession of
the marriage hall on 20.01.2026, it was further stated that the
petitioner was taking charge/ possession of the marriage hall under
protest subject to final outcome of the present writ petition.
16. In view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that as the petitioner was handed over the

WRIC No. 39695 of 2022
5
possession/ charge of the marriage hall only in the month of
January, 2026, hence, the petitioner was liable to pay the amounts
payable to the respondent no.3 in pursuance to the agreement only
from the date of taking charge/ possession of the marriage hall. It
has further been contended that there was no occasion for the
petitioner to take possession/ charge of the marriage hall on
03.04.2023, in view of the dilapidated and poor condition of the
marriage hall, whose repair work was admittedly carried out by the
respondents by issuing work orders and the petitioner in any case
could not be held liable for payment of any amount till the time the
marriage hall was brought in a running condition. Thus, the crux of
the contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is liable to
deposit the amount due only from the date of taking charge/
possession of the marriage hall i.e January, 2026 for a tenure of 10
years thereafter.
17. Per contra it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the
petitioner was handed over the charge / possession of the
marriage hall in pursuance to the letter dated 03.04.2023 and the
petitioner had not objected to the same at any point of time
thereafter. Attention in this regard is drawn to the copy of the letter
dated 03.04.2023, which was marked to the concerned
employee(s) of the respondent no.3-panchayat who had been
asked to handover the charge/ possession of the marriage hall to
the petitioner. Hence, it is contended on behalf of the respondents
that the petitioner was liable to pay the enhanced amount as
agreed upon from April, 2023.
18. We have perused the records of the case.
19. A perusal of the agreement dated 05.12.2013 shows that
amongst others it states as under:-
/
इकरारनामा अनुबंध
-
जिला पंचायत झांसी द्वारा अपर मुख्य अधिकारी जिला पंचायत झांसी प्रथम पक्ष
श्री सत्यनारायण अग्रवाल पुत्र श्री लखनलाल नि० मु० परवारीपुरा मऊरानीपुर व श्री रवि पुत्र श्री मेहरवान सिंह
-
नि० ग्राम सिमराहा जिला झांसी द्वितीय पक्ष।
मैं द्वितीय पक्ष श्री सत्यनारायण अग्रवाल पुत्र श्री लखनलाल नि० मु० परवारीपुरा मऊरानीपुर व श्री रवि पुत्र श्री

WRIC No. 39695 of 2022
6
मेहरवान सिंह नि० ग्राम सिमराहा जिला झांसी का मूल निवासी हूँ जो कि मुझे जिला पंचायत झांसी का
मऊरानीपुर में स्थित निरीक्षण गृह परिसर में निर्मित विवाह घर को चार्ज देने की तिथि से दस वर्ष की अवधि के
01-11-2013 25,12,500/-
लिये दिनांक को मु० रू० पर प्रथम पक्ष जिला पंचायत झांसी द्वारा निम्न शर्तों के
अधीन आवंटित किया गया है।
(emphasis added)
20. Hence, the perusal of the agreement itself reveals that the
agreement was to commence from the date of hand over of the
charge of the marriage hall to the petitioner. The bone of
contention between the parties is that the petitioner states that he
had taken over the charge/ possession of the marriage hall on
20.01.2026, while on the other hand the respondents state that the
charge of the marriage hall was handed over to the petitioner on
03.04.2023.
21. Be that as it may, the respondents do not dispute the fact that
the marriage hall was in a dilapidated and poor structural condition
in April, 2023, when allegedly the charge of the same was handed
over to the petitioner. It is also not disputed by the respondents
that a budget of Rs. 20,17,000/- inclusive of GST was sanctioned
by the respondent no. 3-panchayat for the purposes repair of
kitchen and four flats, which were a part of the marriage hall and
two work orders dated 21.08.2023 and dated 27.08.2023
respectively were also issued. Hence, it can very well be
concluded that the marriage hall was not in a running condition in
April, 2023 and under these circumstances, it is beyond doubt that
it would not have been possible for the petitioner to have operated
the marriage hall and earn profits, while it was undergoing repairs.
22. The respondents do not dispute the fact that the work of repair
was completed sometime in September, 2025. It is only thereafter
that it would have been possible for the petitioner to have operated
the marriage hall. There is no dispute regarding the fact that as
duly agreed between the parties the petitioner was liable to pay the
amount due in pursuance to the agreement only after taking the
charge/ possession of the marriage hall, and as such the term of
ten years would commence from the date of taking charge of the

WRIC No. 39695 of 2022
7
marriage hall.
23. Hence, there was no occasion for the petitioner to have paid
any amount to the respondent till the point of time he was handed
over the charge of the marriage hall, which happened some time in
January, 2026. Even otherwise, the petitioner had taken marriage
hall for earning profits and cannot be held liable to pay any amount
to the respondents unless the marriage hall was in a habitable and
running condition and charge thereof was duly handed over to the
petitioner.
24. Even otherwise as per the terms of the agreement the claimant
was to inform the respondent no.3-panchayat regarding the various
construction works to be carried out in respect of the marriage hall
and the works were to be carried out by the respondent no.3, while
relying upon the said condition of the agreement, we find that the
petitioner in response to the letter dated 03.04.2023 had informed
the respondents regarding dilapidated and poor condition of the
marriage hall vide letter dated 12.04.2023 with a request to get the
same repaired. It is subsequent thereto that the repair works were
carried out at the instance of the respondents, the budget
sanctioned and the work orders were issued.
25. We find that there is another aspect to the matter in
controversy as far as the contention of the respondents of handing
over the possession/ charge of the marriage hall, pursuant to the
letter dated 03.04.2023 is concerned. In the copy of the said letter
issued to the employee(s) of the respondent no.3- panchayat it has
been directed that the charge of the marriage hall be handed over
to the petitioner but the respondents have failed to place any
material on record to show that the charge was actually handed
over to the petitioner in pursuance to the letter dated 03.04.2023.
26. In view of the findings arrived at by us above, we go on to
consider the provisions of Section 52 and Section 54 of Indian
Contract Act,1872 which are relevant as far as the present
controversy is concerned and reads as under:
“ 52. Order of performance of reciprocal promises- Where the order in which

WRIC No. 39695 of 2022
8
reciprocal promises are to be performed is expressly fixed by the contract, they shall
be performed in that order; and where the order is not expressly fixed by the contract,
they shall be performed in that order which the nature of the transaction requires.
54. Effect of default as to that promise which should be first performed in contract
consisting of reciprocal promises- When a contract consists of reciprocal promises,
such that one of them cannot be performed, or that its performance cannot be claimed
till the other has been performed, and the promisor of the promise last mentioned fails
to perform it, such promisor cannot claim the performance of the reciprocal promise,
and must make compensation to the other party to the contract for any loss which such
other party may sustain by the non-performance of the contract.”
27. Thus, Section 52 deals with situations where the sequence in
which the reciprocal promises are to be performed is a factor. The
section states that if the contract explicitly fixes the order of
performance, then the promises be performed in that sequence.
Further Section 52 emphasizes the necessity of establishing a
clear sequence of action within a contractual framework to ensure
the orderly progression of obligations and to prevent premature
demands for performance from either party.
28. Further Section 54 deals with situations where performance of
one reciprocal promise is inherently dependent upon prior
performance of another promise within the same contract. This
Section stipulates that if the promisor of the promise that should be
performed first fails to fulfill their obligation, they cannot then claim
the performance of the reciprocal promise from the other party.
Moreover, the defaulting promisor is also liable to make
compensation to the other party for any loss that may incur as a
consequence of the non-performance of a precedent obligation of
the contract. This Section clearly establishes a cause and effect
relationship between the non-performance of a precedent
obligation and the subsequent rights and liabilities of the other
party involved in the reciprocal promise.
29. Hence, in view of the above provisions and from the perusal of
the agreement dated 05.12.2023 it is evident that the agreement
was to commence from the date of handing over the charge of the
marriage hall to the petitioner. Thus, handing over of the charge of

WRIC No. 39695 of 2022
9
the marriage hall is a condition precedent for the petitioner
becoming liable for payment of amounts to the respondent no.3-
panchayat, the same being evident from the nature of transaction.
Further, unless the petitioner was handed over the charge of the
marriage hall he was not under any obligation to pay any amount
to the respondent no.3 under the agreement. Such being the legal
position the petitioner would be liable to pay the amounts to the
respondent no.3 when the charge of the marriage hall was handed
over to the petitioner in January,2026.
30. However, the petitioner was aware that the marriage hall was
in functional condition in September, 2025 itself, still the petitioner
took charge of the marriage hall in January, 2026. Hence, the
petitioner is himself liable for this delay and the respondents
cannot be held responsible for the same. Thus, we are of the view
that the petitioner would be liable to pay an enhanced amount as
mutually agreed upon with the respondent no.3-panchayat in terms
of the agreement from September, 2025 and the tenure of the
agreement so executed between the parties for ten years would
also commence from September, 2025.
31. As far as the reliefs claimed by the petitioner in the present writ
petition are concerned in view of the fact that the petitioner has
already been handed over the possession/ charge of the marriage
hall and the petitioner is also willing to deposit the amounts under
the agreement dated 05.12.2013 at an enhanced rate of 20%, the
impugned letter dated 14.11.2022 has lost its relevance.
32. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the
respondent that they may charge the amount due from the
petitioner under the agreement at an enhanced rate of 20%,
commencing from September, 2025 and the tenure of agreement
for ten years would commence from September, 2025.
33. No orders as to costs.
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Neeraj Tiwari,J.)
May 29, 2026
Nadeem
Digitally signed by :-
NADEEM AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad