Smt. Vinesh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36192-DB

Court No. - 21

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1891 of 2025

Petitioner :- Smt. Vinesh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anshul Kumar Singhal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri Ridham Gupta, holding brief of Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

¶7

The petitioners have assailed communications dated 12.7.2023 and 10.1.2024 between Noida and the petitioners, informing the petitioners that their application for mutation of their name in place of Mahesh could not be considered in view of pendency of Civil Appeal No. 8/2021 between the petitioners and private respondent nos. 4 and 5.

¶8

The facts in brief are that Mahesh, late husband of petitioner no. 1 and father of petitioner nos. 2 and 3, was a lessee of Plot No. GT49, Sector 117, Noida, on basis of lease deed dated 22.5.2014, registered on 23.5.2014. It seems that O.S. No. 441 of 2023 was instituted by respondent nos. 4 and 5 against Mahesh for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 21.10.2005, purportedly executed by him in favour of the private respondents. Mahesh also filed a separate suit, being O.S. No. 1360 of 2012 for cancellation of agreement to sell dated 21.10.2005 and for declaration that it was a void document. Both the suits were decided by a common judgment dated 15.2.2021. The suit filed by respondent nos. 4 and

¶9

5 for specific performance was decreed whereas the suit filed by

¶10

Mahesh was dismissed. Mahesh was directed to execute sale deed in favour of respondent nos. 4 and 5 within one month after accepting the remaining sale consideration and he was also restrained from creating any third party right in the suit property. Mahesh, aggrieved thereby, filed Civil Appeal No. 8/2021 and wherein, by order dated 8.4.2021, the appellate court stayed the operation of the decree of the trial court, but at the same time, restrained him from creating any third party right in the suit property. It is on basis of the said litigation that Noida has declined to consider the application of the petitioners for mutation of their name in place of Mahesh who died during pendency of the appeal on 24.4.2023.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the stand taken by Noida is wholly illegal, inasmuch as the petitioners only prayed for mutation of their name in place of Mahesh, the original allottee, on basis of succession. He submits that the issue relating to execution of sale deed in terms of the alleged agreement to sell is sub judice in civil appeal pending between the parties and in case the decree for specific performance is upheld, the petitioners would be bound to execute sale deed in favour of respondent nos. 4 and 5. However, it would not be an impediment at this stage in not mutating the name of the petitioners in place of Mahesh, the original allottee, through whom the petitioners are claiming right in the property.

¶12

Sri Ridham Gupta, appearing on behalf of Noida, is not in a position to show to us as to how the decree passed by the trial court or the interim order passed in appeal, would be an impediment in considering the mutation application filed by the petitioners. Undoubtedly, even if decree for specific performance is upheld, the petitioners would be able to pass valid title, if they

¶13

are substituted in place of Mahesh.

¶14

In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the stand taken by Noida in the impugned communications is not sustainable in law and accordingly the instant petition is disposed of with direction to respondent no. 2 to pass a speaking order on merits on the application of the petitioners for mutation of their name, after hearing the petitioners and respondent nos. 4 and 5, within twelve weeks from the date of communication of the instant order.

¶15

(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 12.3.2025

¶16

Jaideep/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- JAIDEEP BANERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Vinesh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vinesh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajmani and 13 Others vs National Highway Authority of India and 2 Others

Vanshnarayan Singh and 16 Others vs National Highway Authority of India and 2 Others

Ramashankar and Another vs Union of India and 9 Others

Ajay Gupta vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Diligent Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Up and Another

Mohd Bilal vs Union of India and 3 Others