Heirs Lose Release Of Kanpur Land Their Predecessors Bought After Acquisition Notice; Allahabad HC Upholds Recall For Concealment, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs

The petitioners claimed rights in land acquired in 1959 under the Kanpur Urban Area Development Act, 1945 (“1945 Act”).

Their predecessors purchased the land in 1962, after acquisition notifications had issued.

Earlier civil proceedings challenging the acquisition were dismissed; the second appeal was later dismissed as infructuous.

On a District Magistrate’s report recommending release, the State issued a notification dated 3 May 2006 releasing the land.

The report stated, among other things, that possession had not been taken and the scheme had not been implemented.

In 2008, the Principal Secretary recalled that notification, and the petitioners challenged the recall.

The High Court found that the report and petitioners’ representations omitted material facts, including the post-notification purchase and the prior litigation.

Fraud or material misrepresentation vitiates an administrative or quasi-judicial order, and an authority may recall an order procured by fraud even without an express statutory review power; the affected person should ordinarily receive notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Under Sections 71 and 114 of the 1945 Act, the 1894 Act applied to acquisition under the 1945 Act subject to specified modifications; the court held that Section 48 of the 1894 Act was not incorporated, and that repeal of the 1945 Act by Section 581 of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 left no applicable basis to invoke Section 48 for this land.

Section 17 of the 1973 Act did not apply because the land had not been acquired under that Act.

Article 226 relief is discretionary and may be refused where granting it would revive an illegal order; the court also applied the principles that writ petitioners must disclose material facts and approach the court with clean hands.

The Court held that the 3 May 2006 release rested on an incomplete and misleading report.

It omitted that the petitioners’ predecessors purchased the land after acquisition notifications, that earlier proceedings had rejected their challenge to the acquisition, and that interim orders had prevented the acquiring body from taking possession.

The Court also concluded that neither Section 48 of the 1894 Act nor Section 17 of the 1973 Act authorised release of land acquired under the 1945 Act; therefore, the original release notification was itself without jurisdiction.

The petitioners’ failure to disclose the prior litigation and material title facts reinforced the finding that the release had been procured by concealment.

Although no hearing preceded recall, the Court found no prejudice because, on the undisputed facts, the petitioners had no entitlement to release and the original notification could not lawfully stand.

Setting aside the recall would therefore revive an illegal order, which the Court declined to do.

It imposed costs of ₹5 lakh on the petitioners, payable to the respondent no. 1 within two months; half was to be paid by respondent no. 1 to the Allahabad High Court Legal Services Committee.

The amount could be recovered as arrears of land revenue if unpaid.