After KDA Took Widow’s ₹76,187 OTS Payment, Allahabad HC Set Aside Unserved Cancellation and Ordered Her Mutation Plea Reconsidered

In brief

The question

1. Whether the 2002 cancellation order was effective against the original allottee or petitioner despite not having been communicated to them.

The court held

The Court held the 2002 cancellation ineffective and set it aside; it also set aside the KDA’s orders dated 28 August 2017 and 27 September 2017.

It also directed

The writ petition was partly allowed. The KDA was directed to consider the petitioner’s mutation application in accordance with law within six weeks, treating the entire amount as deposited; the Court did not itself direct that mutation be completed.

No order as to costs was made.

01Facts

The petitioner’s husband was allotted a Mini LIG quarter by the Kanpur Development Authority (KDA) in 1992 and was required to pay the balance in instalments.

¶ 3–6

The KDA stated that the allotment was cancelled in 2002 for payment default, but the petitioner disputed that the cancellation order had ever been communicated to her husband or her.

¶ 3–6, 19–21

After her husband’s death in 2007, the petitioner applied under the KDA’s 2013 one-time settlement (OTS) scheme. The KDA assessed ₹76,187, which she paid in full on 30 May 2013.

¶ 7–9, 22–23

When she later sought mutation, the KDA refused on the ground that the allotment had been cancelled in 2002. She challenged that refusal and related orders in the writ petition.

¶ 10–13

02Issues

i.1. Whether the 2002 cancellation order was effective against the original allottee or petitioner despite not having been communicated to them.

¶ 17(I)

ii.2. Whether the KDA’s acceptance of the amount assessed under the 2013 OTS scheme rendered the cancellation ineffective and estopped the KDA from resiling from the settlement.

¶ 17(II)

iii.3. Whether the KDA’s orders dated 28 August 2017 and 27 September 2017 should be set aside.

¶ 17(III)

iv.4. What relief the petitioner was entitled to.

¶ 17(IV)

03Law Applied

An administrative order that has not been communicated to the person affected does not become effective against that person or create enforceable legal consequences; the Court relied on Greater Mohali Area Development Authority v. Manju Jain, (2010) 9 SCC 157.

¶ 20

The Court also treated an OTS settlement as binding where the authority assesses and accepts the settlement amount without raising an objection: in those circumstances, the authority cannot resile from the settlement and is estopped by its conduct.

¶ 23–24

04Reasoning

The KDA asserted that the cancellation order had been served, but its counter-affidavit did not specify when or how service was effected; the Court therefore held that the cancellation had not been communicated and was ineffective against the allottee and petitioner.

¶ 20–21

Separately, the petitioner paid the full ₹76,187 assessed under the 2013 OTS within the permitted period, and the KDA raised no objection to the amount at the time of payment. The Court concluded that the KDA’s acceptance of the settlement was inconsistent with its later reliance on the 2002 cancellation and estopped it from resiling from the OTS.

¶ 22–24