A hearing is required for lease resumption, not merely to reject a transfer request.

The petitioner held a 99-year lease granted in 1994, which required the lessor’s written consent for assignment or transfer.

On 18 May 2022, he applied to transfer the leasehold land.

The development authority communicated on 16 September 2022 that it had approved the application and would refer it to the UDMA Department.

In 2023, the Department adopted a policy for dealing with transfer applications where lease conditions had been violated, including possible resumption after a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Following an earlier writ petition, the State considered the transfer application and rejected it by a reasoned order dated 17 August 2026, communicated on 19 August 2026.

The petitioner challenged that order, contending, among other things, that the 2023 decision had not been communicated and that he had not been heard.

Whether the State’s rejection of the petitioner’s application to transfer the leasehold land, on the basis of a violation of the lease conditions, warranted judicial interference.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to prior communication of the UDMA decision or a hearing before the transfer application was rejected.

The lease deed required the lessee to construct a building, in accordance with the applicable authority’s rules and sanctioned plans, within three years of allotment (Clause 23).

The lease also required the lessor’s written consent before assignment or transfer.

Under the UDMA’s decision of 7 June 2023, where a lease violation is found, a transfer proposal may be considered after permissible corrective measures are taken; where correction is not made or is impermissible, resumption or other action may be pursued under the lease, after giving the lessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The judgment identifies no statute or judicial precedent as the basis for its decision.

The Court accepted the Special Secretary’s finding that the petitioner had violated Clause 23 and held that rejection of the transfer request was consistent with the UDMA’s 7 June 2023 decision.

It distinguished rejection of a transfer application from resumption of the lease: the impugned order did not initiate resumption, and the hearing requirement in the UDMA decision applied when resumption proceedings were initiated.

The Court also found that the petitioner had not shown serious prejudice from the non-communication of the Department’s decision.

The Court dismissed the writ petition.

No order as to costs was made.