Disposed

Manan Somani v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC23 May 2018WRIC/44843/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought mutation and lease renewal rights in land originally leased by his ancestors in 1922 via the Cawnpore Improvement Trust. The 90-year lease expired in 2012. The Court held that lease renewal is a matter for the Development Authority. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty for the petitioner to present his claim to the Authority within six weeks. The matter was disposed

What did the court decide?

Liberty to petitioner to file certified copy of order before Respondent No.2 within six weeks for appropriate order.

Manan Somani Vs State of U.P. and Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44843 of 2005

¶3

Petitioner :- Manan Somani Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K.Gupta,Amit Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.C.Tripathi,M.S. Tripathi,Man Mohan Das Agarwal,Pradeep Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.

¶5

Heard Sri P.N.Saxena, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri Tripathi for respondents no.2 and 3.

¶6

An amendment application has also been filed in this writ petition dated 14th of May, 2012 which is not on record. The office is directed to trace it out and place the same on record. We, however, proceed to decide the matter with the aid of a copy of the amendment application, which has been supplied by learned counsel for the petitioner and which copy is also available with learned counsel for the respondents. No counter affidavit has been filed to the said amendment application.

¶7

The relief prayed for originally in the writ petition was for a mandamus to mutate the name of the petitioner in place of the deceased lessee and further to issue a 'demand note' in order to enable the petitioner to fulfill his obligation of depositing the amount that may be required for payment of lease rent in order to process renewal of lease. A further prayer has also been made that no coercive steps should be taken by the respondents in respect of the property in dispute till such decision is taken.

¶8

A counter affidavit was filed by the respondent Development Authority annexing therewith a copy of the same lease deed, which has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. A

¶9

perusal of the said lease deed demonstrates that in the year 1922 the said land had been acquired by the then Cawnpore Improvement Trust from the Zamindar of which the petitioner's ancestors were tenants. Under this arrangement, after the land was acquired by the Cawnpore Improvement Trust, the lease was entered afresh with the petitioner's ancestors for a period of 90 years since 1922. There is no dispute that the said lease continued and has not been terminated but the period of lease of 90 years had expired in the year 2012.

¶10

Prior to expiry of the period of 90 years the petitioner's father, who had succeeded to the property according to him under some family arrangement inter se, applied for grant of renewal of lease as well as for other reliefs and after the death of his father, the petitioner applied for mutation. Since the same was not being considered therefore, this writ petition was filed.

¶11

By way of an amendment the relief of renewal of lease and also grant of freehold right has been prayed for.

¶12

The question as to whether after expiry of the lease the Kanpur Development Authority, which has now stepped into the shoes of the Cawnpore Improvement Trust, can proceed to extend the period of lease or not is a matter of consideration by the Development Authority itself. In such a situation there is no occasion for this Court now to keep the matter pending, inasmuch as, the reliefs already prayed for originally in the writ petition stand rendered infructuous but under the interim order dated 8th June, 2015 certain amount of money had been paid and deposited with the Kanpur Development Authority.

¶13

Keeping in view the said facts, we dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a certified copy of this order before respondent no.2, who shall proceed to examine the said

¶14

claim of the petitioner in accordance with law as well as relevant Government Orders, which may be prevalent and pass an appropriate order within six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him.

¶15

Order Date :- 23.5.2018 KA

Manan Somani v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manan Somani v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Gaffoor Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aneesh and Another Vs Shivalik Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Another

Pushpa Devi Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Raj Kumar Verma Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Neetu Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Kumar Solanki Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others