Allahabad High Court Imposes Cost Of ₹50K On Lucknow Development Authority For Trespassing On Private Property

The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of ₹50,000/- on Lucknow Development Authority for trespassing on private property and violating Article 300 A of the Constitution by dispossessing him without due sanction of law.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition seeking quashing of an order passed by the Lucknow Development Authority declaring the property of the Petitioner to be theirs and asking the latter to vacate the premises.

The single bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia observed, "Considering the submissions made at the Bar, ex-facie the action of the Lucknow Development Authority in interfering with the possession of the petitioner without adopting process of law, the rights accrued by virtue of Article 300A in favour of the petitioner, who claims his ownership and possession by virtue of a registered sale deed executed in his favour has been thrown to winds, no process known to law for eviction of the petitioner has been adopted by the Lucknow Development Authority, clearly dispossessing the petitioner in the manner in which it has been done is neither sanctioned by any law nor can be termed as 'due process of law', this Court has no hesitation in holding that the Lucknow Development Authority's Act of dispossessing the petitioner has violated the constitutional rights vested in favour of the petitioner by virtue of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, the same cannot be permitted in a society known to be governed by rule of law, as such, the action of the respondents in dispossessing the petitioner from the Shop No.112(a) is quashed....."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Sachin Upadhyay while the Respondent was represented by Advocate C.S.C.

Facts of the Case

The Counsel for the Petitioner argued that initially the property in question was leased to M/S Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited in terms of the lease deed executed in its favour by the Respondent and the said lease deed was on payment and contained stipulation that the initial lease would be of period of 30 years and thereafter it will be extended subject to certain conditions.

The Petitioner submitted that in pursuance to the said stipulation 8(ii), contained in the said lease deed, the main lessor i.e. the M/S Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited executed the sale deed in favour of the Petitioner and the shop in question was sold in favour of the Petitioner. It was also stated that the transfer charges as stipulated in the main lease were also paid and since then the Petitioner is in possession of the said shop.

It was argued that subsequently an order was passed against the main lessee indicating that the lease had been terminated in the year 2017. The said order also indicated that against the termination of lease, the main lessee had approach the Lucknow Development Authority in the year 2024. It was also stated by the main lessee that there were some structural problems in the building in question which can lead to an accident. It was also noticed that the main lessee had taken few of the shops and got vacated, however, some shops were still continuing and there were lot of filth around the building in question. In the light of the said, the representation filed by the main lessee for recalling the order, determining the lease, was rejected.

It was further argued that after the passing of the said order, no order whatsoever was passed by the Lucknow Development Authority against the Petitioner, instead the Lucknow Development Authority issued a Public Notice stating that the main lease deed had been determined and at present, the property in question was the property of the Lucknow Development Authority and further directions were given to vacate the premises.

The Counsel contended that the Petitioner is owner of the shop in question by virtue of a Sale Deed executed in his favour, no proceedings have ever been issued for cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the Petitioner, no Notice has ever been given to the Petitioner by the Lucknow Development Authority indicating that the Sale Deed, executed in favour of the Petitioner, is being set aside or the lease hold rights, claimed by the Petitioner, stands determined and the Petitioner has been dispossessed without any process of law and the property in question, which is a shop, was sealed. It was averred that this is clearly in violation of rights conferred by virtue of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

Reasoning By Court

The Court agreed with the submissions of the Counsel for the Petitioner and ruled that the Lucknow Development Authority trespassed the property of the Petitioner in violation of rights conferred by virtue of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

"The respondent No.2 is directed to put the petitioner in possession of the shop in question forthwith. For dispossessing the petitioner without any authority of law, the petitioner is entitled to cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the Lucknow Development Authority, who have trespassed in the property of the petitioner without any authority of law", the Court observed.

It, however granted the Authority liberty to take action against the Petitioner in accordance with law.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Mohammad Zaimul Islam vs. State Of U.P. (2025:AHC-LKO:44104)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Sachin Upadhyay, Advocate Bhavesh Chandel, Advocate Piyush Raj Verma, Advocate Shivendra S Singh Rathore

Respondent- Advocate C.S.C., Advocate Ratnesh Chandra

Click here to read/ download Order