Title: Municipal Corporation estopped from claiming land as pond after executing valid sale deeds and long-term abadi recording. Summary of the Case: Facts: The petitioner sought a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) from Nagar Nigam, Varanasi, to construct a hotel based on an MoU with the State of UP. The Corporation refused, citing revenue records from 1884 (1291 Fasli) which recorded the land as a pond. However, the record showed that the Municipal Board had itself sold the land via registered deeds in 1913. Since 1954, the land was recorded as ‘abadi’ (settled) in revenue records, was situated in a densely populated area, and had housed a cinema hall for 50 years. Issues: 1. Whether the Corporation can deny an NOC based on ancient revenue entries (1884) when it has previously executed sale deeds for the same land. 2. Whether the principles laid down in *Hinch Lal Tiwari* regarding pond restoration apply to land recorded as abadi for over 70 years and held through valid title deeds. Court's Reasoning: * Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel: The Court held that the Corporation, having executed a registered sale deed in 1913 admitting the existence of structures, is estopped from claiming the land is a pond 113 years later. * Presumption of Validity: Registered sale deeds carry a presumption of genuineness under law which the State failed to displace. * Revenue Records: While a 1359 Fasli Khasra entry mentioned a pond, the Khatauni (Record of Rights) consistently showed 'abadi' since 1954. The Court noted that Khasra is a record of possession, while Khatauni is the record of title/rights. * Inapplicability of Hinch Lal Tiwari: The Court distinguished this case from precedents regarding pond restoration, noting that the petitioner held valid title, the land was in a densely populated urban area, and the State’s attempt to "restore" it was an afterthought triggered only by the litigation. * Discriminatory Action: The State singled out the petitioner’s plot while ignoring the rest of the original Arazi (0.668 hectares), violating Article 14. Conclusion: The High Court quashed the refusal letter and issued a writ of mandamus directing the Corporation to reconsider the NOC application, affirming that ancient revenue entries cannot override valid registered titles and long-standing urban land usage.

The Petitioner, owner of plot No. D-48/140-141 (Arazi Nos. 2404 and 2402) in Varanasi, applied for a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) from Nagar Nigam, Varanasi, to construct a hotel following a Memorandum of Understanding with the State of U.P.

The Respondent refused the NOC on 24.01.2026, claiming Arazi No. 2404 was recorded as a pond in the revenue records of Fasli year 1291 (1884 CE).

Historically, the Municipal Board had sold the land with structures to the Petitioner's predecessor via a registered sale deed in 1913.

Revenue records from Fasli 1361 (1954 CE) to 1425 (present) consistently record the land as abadi (settlement).

Following the court's intervention, the Respondent sought an IIT-BHU report which confirmed the area is densely populated and lacks an existing water body.

1. Whether the Respondent could deny an NOC based on a revenue entry from 1884 CE despite a 1913 registered sale deed and current abadi status.

2. Whether the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (UPZA & LR) Act, 1950, and U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, regarding the protection of water bodies, are applicable to land included in municipal limits prior to 1949.

3. Whether the principles laid down in Hinch Lal Tiwari regarding the restoration of ponds apply to the facts of the present case.

The Court applied the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, preventing a party from departing from an assumption of fact/law adopted by another to their detriment.

Section 1(2) of the UPZA & LR Act, 1950, which excludes areas included in a municipality as of 07.07.1949.

The Court cited Prem Singh v. Birbal regarding the legal presumption of validity of registered sale deeds.

The Court distinguished Hinch Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P. (2001) and Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2011), which mandate the restoration of water bodies, by applying the balancing test from State of Rajasthan v. Ultra Tech Cement Limited (2022), where revenue corrections are permitted if no physical pond exists.

The Court reasoned that the 1913 sale deed executed by the Municipal Board itself proved the land had structures and was not a pond over a century ago.

Since the land was part of the municipality before 1949, the UPZA & LR Act and certain chapters of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 (specifically those managing village ponds) do not apply.

The Court found the Respondent's reliance on a single Khasra entry from 1359 Fasli (1952 CE) insufficient to override 74 years of Khatauni entries recording the land as abadi.

The IIT-BHU report corroborated that the site is dry, filled with debris, and surrounded by dense urban construction, making the restoration of a pond ecologically and physically unfeasible.

The Court held the Respondent was estopped from claiming the land was a pond after treating it as private taxable property since 1927.

The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the refusal letter dated 24.01.2026. A writ of mandamus was issued directing Nagar Nigam, Varanasi, to reconsider the Petitioner's NOC application for the hotel construction within four weeks, in light of the Petitioner's valid title and the non-existence of a pond at the site.