Smt. Rani Devi Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others

A.F.R.
Judgment reserved on 26.10.2026
Judgment delivered on 12.11.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT – C No. - 54480 of 2017
Smt. Rani Devi Yadav …..Petitioners(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 4
others
…..Respondents(s)
Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Ram Sajiwan Mishra, S.K. Singh
Yadav, Sanjay Kumar Nigam, Satya
Prakash Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Shashi Prakash Rai, C.S.C. P.K.
Tripathi
Court No. - 29
HON’BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON’BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
(Per : Kunal Ravi Singh, J.)
1. Heard Shri Ram Sajivan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Shri Shashi Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the respondent Kanpur
Development Authority.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
“(a) issue writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated
28.08.2017 and 27.09.2017 passed by respondent no. 5 (Annexure no. 12 and 14 to
the writ petition).
(b) issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent
authorities to treat order dated 19.06.2002 mentioned in orders dated 28.08.2017
and 27.09.2017 void
(c) Issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent
no. 5 for mutation and registration of Sale deed in favour of petitioner due to death

2
[Writ C No. 54480 of 2017]
of allottee, husband petitioner, of quarter no. C-474, Mini LIG, Barra-6 Kanpur
Nagar.
(d) Issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding respondent
no. 5 to provide copy of cancellation of allotment order dated 19.06.2002 mentioned
in order dated 29.08.2017 and 27.09.2017.
(e) Issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent
no. 3 to decide application dated 6.9.2017 moved by petitioner (Annexure-13).
(f) issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(g) award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.”
FACTS:
3. On an advertisement published by the Kanpur Development
Authority (“ the Authority ” for brevity) for allotment of quarters, the
husband of the petitioner namely Shri Shyam Singh Yadav filed an
application for allotment of a quarter and thereafter quarter no. C-474,
Mini LIG, Barra-6, Kanpur Nagar was allotted to the husband of the
petitioner and an allotment letter was issued on 01.12.1992.
4. The allotted cost of the quarter was 40,648/- and the petitioner
₹
th
had to deposit 1/4 of the allotted cost i.e. 12,000/- at once which was
₹
th
deposited on 12.11.1992. The remaining 3/4 cost was to be deposited in
120 instalments at the rate of 462.25/-
₹
5. The husband of the petitioner was put in possession of the allotted
quarter and the petitioner along with her husband and family started
living therein. Furthermore, after the death of the husband of the
petitioner on 05.09.2007, the petitioner has been residing in the said
quarter and is in possession of the same.
6. Since 2002, the husband of the petitioner had deposited 23,469/-
₹
on different dates under the head of instalment and penal interest.
Thereafter on 10.08.2005, the husband of the petitioner deposited
25,000 and thereafter again on 31.08.2007, the husband of the
₹
petitioner deposited 12,000 with the Authority.
₹

3
[Writ C No. 54480 of 2017]
7. After the death of her husband in 2007, the petitioner deposited
50,000 before the Authority on 04.08.2012.
₹
8. In the year 2012, the Authority launched a one-time settlement
scheme (“ OTS scheme ” for brevity). Availing the benefit of the OTS
scheme, the petitioner applied for the settlement and deposited a total of
10,500 on 12.03.2013 and 19.03.2013 as the registration amount for the
₹
OTS scheme.
9. The Authority by means of letter dated 10.05.2013 informed the
petitioner that to avail the benefits of the OTS scheme, the petitioner had
to deposit 76,187/-. The said deposit could either be deposited in 2
₹
equal instalments to be paid by 29.06.2013 or the entire amount could be
paid within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of the letter.
The petitioner, availing the benefit of the OTS scheme, deposited the
entire amount of 76,187/- so calculated under the OTS scheme on
₹
30.05.2013.
10. After the deposit had been made under the OTS scheme, the
petitioner moved an application for mutation of her name regarding the
quarter allotted in the name of her husband. On 25.07.2017, the
Authority directed the petitioner to submit certain documents within a
week which the petitioner submitted on 16.08.2017. In reply to the
application for mutation of the name of the petitioner, the Authority
informed the petitioner that as per the available records of the Authority,
the allotment had been cancelled on 19.06.2002 and directed the
petitioner to get a refund of the amount so deposited.
11. Upon the information that the allotment stood cancelled in 2002
itself, the petitioner filed an application before the Vice Chairman of the
Authority on 06.09.2017 appraising therein the aforesaid facts regarding
deposits and applications and again prayed for mutation/ registration of

4
[Writ C No. 54480 of 2017]
the allotted quarter in the name of the petitioner. However, no order
came to be passed on the said application moved by the petitioner.
12. The petitioner again represented to the Public Grievances
Redressal Cell of the Authority on 19.09.2017 and repeated the
grievance. The Authority, in pursuance of the application of the
petitioner, informed the petitioner that the allotment of the quarter was
found to be cancelled on 19.06.2002 as is available in the records the
Authority and hence no action can be taken for the mutation of the name
of the petitioner.
13. Aggrieved by the action of the Authority regarding the
cancellation of the allotment and non-mutation of the name of the
petitioner despite payment of the settlement amount under the OTS
scheme, the present writ petition has been filed.
PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS:
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions
regarding the reliefs claimed in the writ petition:
(i) The alleged cancellation letter dated 19.06.2002 has never been
served upon the petitioner or her husband and, therefore, the cancellation
order dated 19.06.2002 has no effect. It has no relevance in the present
proceedings.
(ii) The petitioner had made an application under the OTS scheme of
the Authority in the year 2013. The application of the petitioner was
accepted upon payment of the registration charge and the amount to be
deposited under the scheme was notified to the petitioner requiring the
petitioner to deposit the entire amount within a period of one month or 2
equal instalments. The petitioner deposited the entire amount claimed
within a period of one month from the date of issuance of the letter and
therefore the entire defaulted amount against the quarter stood fulfilled.

5
[Writ C No. 54480 of 2017]
(iii) Once the Authority had accepted amount calculated under the
OTS scheme, then the Authority cannot go back and contend that the
allotment stood cancelled in 2002 itself and as such no rights would flow
to the petitioner. The action of the Authority is against the doctrine of
legitimate expectation and the Authority is bound by the actions it had
completed in the year 2013. The deposit of the settlement amount would
bind the Authority to a binding contract and the Authority cannot resile
from the same thereafter.
(iv) The rejection of the mutation application on the ground that the
allotment stood cancelled in the year 2002 is patently illegal and
arbitrary in nature. The action of the Authority is mala fide in nature as
once the amount deposited under the OTS scheme has been accepted by
the Authority then impliedly the cancellation order of 2002 would lose
its relevance and can no longer be relied upon by the Authority to reject
the mutation application of the petitioner. The Authority is estopped by
conduct from resiling from the OTS scheme.
(v) The petitioner is entitled to mutation in the records of the
Authority as the original allotted was husband of the petitioner and the
original allotted died in the year 2007. The petitioner being the legally
wedded wife of the deceased allottee is now entitled to get the mutation
done in the records of the Authority as now the entire cost of the quarter
has been settled due to the acceptance of the settlement amount under
the OTS scheme of the Authority.
(vi) The petitioner is not liable to pay the amount as calculated with
regard to the quarter at the present rate because upon acceptance of the
amount calculated under the OTS scheme, it would be assumed that all
the instalments with regard to the quarters to be paid and there remained
nothing more to be deposited by the petitioner with regard to the total
cost of the allotted quarter. The calculations given by the Authority
regarding the present rate are illegal and arbitrary.

6
[Writ C No. 54480 of 2017]
RESPONDENTS NO. 2 TO 5 SUBMISSIONS:
15. Shri Shashi Prakash Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf
respondent No. 2 to 5 made the following submissions to refute the
arguments made by the petitioner’s counsel:
(i) As the balance amount with regard to the cost of the quarter was
not deposited by the husband of the petitioner, the husband of the
petitioner moved an application on 30.10.2001 to compute the balance
amount under the OTS scheme as was prevailing in the year 2001. Since
the amount as calculated under the OTS scheme of the year 2001 was
not deposited by the petitioner, the allotment of the quarter was
cancelled by order dated 19.06.2002 which was approved by the Vice
Chairman of the Authority on 02.07.2002
(ii) It was well within the knowledge of the deceased husband of the
petitioner that the allotment had been cancelled and therefore it cannot
be said that petitioner or her deceased husband was not aware of the
cancellation order passed in the year 2002.
(iii) Since it came to the notice of the Authority that the allotment
already stood cancelled, therefore subsequent communication was sent
informing the petitioner about the said cancellation.
(iv) On several occasions the opportunity was given to the original
allottee as well as the petitioner to deposit the outstanding amount but
the same was not deposited and as such the allotment was rightly
cancelled.
(v) The allotment was made in the year 1992 and till 2017 the
petitioner/ original allottee repeatedly defaulted in the payment of
money. The fact regarding cancellation of the allotment on account of
the default was well within the knowledge of the original allottee and the
petitioner.

7
[Writ C No. 54480 of 2017]
(vi) As the allotment stood cancelled in the year 2002 itself now the
same can only be restored by making the payment at the present rate and
in case the petitioner is not willing to deposit the current rate then the
petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner is a chronic defaulter.
(vii) No rights accrue in favour of the petitioner for mutation of her
name as the allotment stood cancelled in the year 2002 itself. The
original allottee was aware of the cancellation order and unless and until
the cancellation order is set aside, no rights would accrue in favour of
the petitioner.
16. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the records of
the case. Based on the submissions and records annexed the following
points of determination are framed for adjudication of the dispute.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION:
17. The points of determination are as follows:
(I) Whether the cancellation order dated 19.06.2002/ 02.07.2002
would be effective against the original allottee/petitioner in case of
its non- service?
(II) Whether the acceptance of the amount so determined in the OTS
scheme of 2013 would effectively render the cancellation order
dated 19.06.2002/ 02.07.2002 as impliedly being set aside and the
Authority is estopped by conduct in resiling from the OTS?
(III) Whether the order dated 28.08.2017 and 27.09.2017 are liable to
be set aside if the answer to issue No. (II) is in favour of the
petitioner?
(IV) What relief is the petitioner entitled to?
DISCUSSION:
18. From the records it is borne out that the husband of the petitioner
was allotted a quarter being C-474, Mini LIG, Barra-6. The allotment

8
[Writ C No. 54480 of 2017]
letter was also issued in favor of the husband of the petitioner and as per
condition No. 2 of the allotment letter, the husband of the petitioner
th
deposited 12,000 being 1/4 amount of the total cost. The said fact is
₹
also evidenced by receipt dated 12.11.1992. Thereafter the remaining
balance amount was to be deposited in 120 equal instalments. Before the
cancellation of the allotment by means of order dated 19.06.2002/
02.07.2002, the husband of the petitioner had deposited certain amounts
but the same were not in accordance with the payment schedule.
19. According to the Authority, as the instalments were not paid on
time the Authority allowed the husband of the petitioner to avail the
benefits of OTS scheme applicable in the year 2001. It is stated by the
learned counsel for the respondent that information with regard to the
balance payment under the OTS scheme of 2001 was given to the
petitioner by means of letter dated 19.10.2001 however the same is not
part of the record and as such no reliance can be placed on the said
averment on behalf of the respondents. Due to the non-payment of the
amount calculated under the OTS scheme of 2001, the allotment was
cancelled by order dated 19.06.2002 and later approved by the Vice
Chairman on 02.07.2002. This is the cancellation order that the
Authority has relied upon to dismiss the claim of the petitioner regarding
mutation of the name of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the
respondent has submitted that the husband of the petitioner as well as the
petitioner were aware of the cancellation order and hence the orders
dated 28.08.2017 and 27.09.2017 cannot be faulted with. This averment
has categorically been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner
stating that the cancellation order was never served either upon the
husband of the petitioner or the petitioner herself and as such since the
cancellation order was never served upon the petitioner therefore the
cancellation order has no relevance and is ineffective against the
petitioner.

9
[Writ C No. 54480 of 2017]
20. At this juncture, it would be necessary for the Court to examine as
to whether the cancellation order has been communicated to the husband
of the petitioner or not. A perusal of the pleadings of the case reveals that
there is a specific averment in the writ petition with regard to non-
service of order dated 19.06.2002 upon the petitioner and her husband.
In the counter affidavit, the Authority has contended that the cancellation
order was approved by the Vice Chairman of the Authority on
02.07.2002 which was then duly served upon the husband of the
petitioner. A copy of the order passed by the Vice Chairman is attached
to the counter affidavit. However the counter affidavit is silent regarding
service of the said order upon the husband of the petitioner. Nowhere it
has been stated that service was effected upon the husband of the
petitioner on a particular date or even through registered post on the
correct address. The entire pleadings in the counter affidavit are silent in
this regard. It is now well settled that “ if an order is passed but not
communicated to the party concerned, it does not create any legal right
which can be enforced through the court of law, as it does not become
effective till it is communicated”(vide Greater Mohali Area
;¹
Development Authority and Others vs. Manju Jain and others) .
21. Thus, we are of the considered view that as the order of
cancellation was never communicated to the husband of the petitioner,
the cancellation order is ineffective against the husband of the petitioner
and the petitioner. As the order was never communicated, no legal
effects would arise from the said cancellation order and it cannot be held
that the money deposited under the OTS scheme of 2013 was wrongly
deposited and a refund was to be given to the petitioner. Thus, the orders
dated 28.08.2017 and 27.09.2017 are liable to be set aside and are
accordingly set aside. Furthermore, as we have held that cancellation
order was never communicated, we hold that the cancellation order dated
19.06.2002 is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.
1 (2010) 9 SCC 157)

10
[Writ C No. 54480 of 2017]
22. There is another aspect which needs to be examined by this Court
and that aspect is the deposit of the entire amount calculated under the
OTS scheme of 2013 and its implication upon the cancellation order.
Upon an application being made by the petitioner, the Authority
calculated the amount to be deposited under the OTS scheme to be
76,187/-. As per the letter dated 10.05.2013, the petitioner had to
₹
deposit the said amount either in 2 instalments, the last date which being
29.06.2013 or the entire amount could be deposited within a period of 30
days. The relevant part of the letter dated 10.05.2013 is reproduced
below:
/
“आप द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रार्थना आवेदन पत्र में उल्लि खि त विवरण एवं जमा धन की छाया प्रतियों व अन्य
संलग्न प्रपत्रों के आधार पर ओ०टी०एस० जमा अग्रिम धनराशि को समायोजित करने के उपरान्त
/ 76187/-
भवन भूखंण्डों की किश्तों के मद में रूपए जमा करना है। जिसे आपको दो किश्तों में प्रथग
किश्त रूपए 38093.50 दिनांक 30.05.2013 तक एवं द्वितीय किश्त में रूपए 38093.50 दिनांक
29.06.2013 1/2 30 30
तक देय है। प्रथम धनराशि दिन के अन्दर जमा न करके दिन में आप सम्पूर्ण
, 30 15
देय धनराशि जमा कर सकते है। किन्तु दिन के बाद विलम्ब अवधि हेतु प्रतिशत व्याज के साथ
1
देय होगा परन्तु माह के उपरान्त कोई धनराशि जमा नही होगी। उक्त के अतिरिक्त निबन्धन हेतु पट्टा
x x x
भाड़ा रूपए फ्रीहेल्ड शुल्क रूपए विविध व्यय रूपए भी देय है।“
23. From the records it is evident that the petitioner deposited the full
amount on 30.05.2013 which is within the 30-day time-period granted to
deposit the full amount calculated under the OTS scheme. However as
per the Authority, OTS settlement amount was 76,187/- being the first
₹
instalment and 38,093/- being the second instalment which was to be
₹
paid till 22.06.2013. To the Court, the contention of the learned counsel
for the respondent appears to be fallacious. The reason being the letter
dated 10.05.2013 clearly states that the entire amount with regard to the
defaulted instalments comes to 76,187/- which can either be deposited
₹
in two equal instalments; the last date of which being 29.06.2013 or the
entire amount can be deposited in lieu of the first instalment within a
period of 30 days. Once the entire amount has been deposited with no
further objections being raised by the Authority with regard to its
deposit, it can be concluded that the entire defaulted instalments stood

11
[Writ C No. 54480 of 2017]
paid and nothing more remained to be paid by the petitioner with regard
to the cost of the quarter.
24. Once the Authority has accepted the full OTS scheme settlement
amount, can the Authority be allowed to resile from it? From the records
it is evident that no further communication was done by the Authority
regarding any shortfall in the demanded amount under the OTS scheme.
Once the amount demanded as per the OTS scheme is fulfilled, then by
necessary legal fiction it is to be presumed that the Authority is satisfied
that all the instalments, which were defaulted, have been paid as the
acceptance of deposit was without any demur. Once that is the position
then the cancellation order dated 19.06.2002 cannot survive as otherwise
the entire purpose of the OTS scheme would fail to the detriment of the
petitioner. The OTS scheme is a binding contract between the parties
which entails legal consequences. The Authority by accepting the
application for OTS scheme and the subsequent deposit of the settlement
amount, by its conduct, now accepted the position that it does not rely
upon the cancellation order dated 19.06.2002. Therefore, on the
reasoning above, we are of the considered view that the cancellation
order dated 19.06.2002 is ineffective and has no legal ramification on the
claim of the petitioner for mutation of her name. The Authority by its
conduct is now estopped from resiling from the settlement under the
OTS scheme. The necessary consequences of the settlement under the
OTS scheme must now ensure in favour of the petitioner.
ANSWERS TO THE POINTS OF DETERMINATION:

12
[Writ C No. 54480 of 2017]
25. Regarding Issue (I) as to whether the cancellation order dated
19.06.2002/ 02.07.2002 would be effective against the original
allottee/petitioner in case of its non- service the issue is answered
in the negative holding that the cancellation order is ineffective
against the original allottee/ the petitioner as it was never
communicated.
26. Regarding Issue (II) as to whether the acceptance of the amount so
determined in the OTS scheme of 2013 would effectively render
the cancellation order dated 19.06.2002/ 02.07.2002 as impliedly
being set aside and thus ineffective against the petitioner/ original
allottee the issue is answered in the affirmative holding that the
order dated 19.06.2002 is ineffective against the petitioner/
original allottee and is set aside.
27. Regarding Issue (III) as to whether the order dated 28.08.2017 and
27.09.2017 are liable to be set aside if the answer to issue No. (II)
is in favour of the petitioner the issue is answered in the
affirmative holding that the orders dated 28.08.2017 and
27.09.2017 are set aside.
28. Regarding Issue (IV) as to what relief is the petitioner entitled to,
it is directed that the application for mutation of the petitioner
shall be considered in accordance with law within a period of 6
weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order
treating the entire amount to have been deposited.
CONCLUSION:
29 . In light of the above findings and directions, the writ petition
stands partly allowed . There shall be no order as to costs.
(Kunal Ravi Singh) (Siddhartha Varma, J.)
November 12, 2026/ Sumit S
Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad