M/S Rosebud Realcon LLP Ltd., Lko. Thru. Designated Partner Shri Naresh Jain vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that for the purpose of developing Hi-Tech Township, the State Government had granted H. Tech Township Licence to M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd.

¶12

It has been submitted that the land was to be purchased initially by M/s. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. and subsequently it was to be developed by M/s Ansal itself or sold to other developers including the petitioner.

¶13

It has been submitted that M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. had purchased the said land situated at Khasra No. 5, 6 and 8 by means of three sale deeds dated 06.04.2019, 13.01.2020 and 23.03.2019. It is on the basis of the said sale deed the land came to be vested with M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. and subsequently the land was sold in favour of the petitioner by means of a registered sale deed dated 4.10.2019.

¶14

It has further been submitted that the land was purchased from the recorded tenure holder who was a Scheduled Caste and for which purpose an application under Section 98(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code was filed

¶15

WRIC No. 12425 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

and the permission for sale was allowed by the Additional District Magistrate/ Additional Collector, Lucknow on 27.2.2019 and 10.12.2019. While granting permission for transfer of land by a Scheduled Caste in favour of M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. in clause 4 a condition was imposed that the said sale has to be concluded within a period of one month from the date of permission. There is no dispute that there was some delay in execution of the sale deed in favour of M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., which was around one and half - two months. There is no dispute that property subsequently came into possession of the petitioner and he started development work. It is during this period a complaint was made by Shri Satendra Kumar, Advocate stating that a sale deed was executed in favour M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. in gross violation of Section 98(1) of U.P. Revenue Code and consequently such land should vest in the State Government as per provisions contained in Sections 104 and 105 of the U.P. Revenue Code. The S.D.M. by means of order dated 16.12.2024 has allowed the said application and directed the vesting of the said land in favour of the State Government free of all encumbrances.

¶18

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 16.12.2024 is illegal and arbitrary, in as much as the petitioner in whose favour the sale deed has been executed by M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. was not made a party and apart from the above even in the said order there is no mention that any objection was filed by M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. and was given any opportunity of hearing.

¶19

It has further been submitted that clause 4 of the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and in as much as a perusal of Section 98(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code would indicate that no such condition can be imposed by the Authority giving permission for sale of the land belonging to Scheduled Caste in favour of a person belonging to any other caste.

¶20

It is submitted that the said condition was illegal and arbitrary and alien to the statutory provisions and therefore such conditions cannot be deployed to invoke provision under Sections 104/105 of the U.P. Revenue Code. Lastly it was submitted that the sale deeds were executed in

¶21

WRIC No. 12425 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

favour of M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. on 06.04.2019, 17.1.2020 and 23.03.2019 and there is no justification as to how the application could have been entertained after a long delay of 05 years.

¶24

Accordingly, the matter requires consideration.

¶25

Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of three weeks.

¶26

Rejoinder affidavit may also be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶27

List on 09.03.2026.

¶28

Till the next date of listing, operation of the impugned order dated 16.12.2024 passed in Case No. 27166 of 2024 (Computer Case No. 202410460527166) [State of U.P. Vs. Ranjit and others] passed by respondent no. 3, shall remain stayed.

(Alok Mathur,J.)

January 5, 2026

Muk

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Rosebud Realcon LLP Ltd., Lko. Thru. Designated Partner Shri Naresh Jain v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Rosebud Realcon LLP Ltd., Lko. Thru. Designated Partner Shri Naresh Jain v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C/M Smt. Awadhraji Ram Lallan Inter College Madaha Thru. Manager Durga Prasad Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko and 4 Others

Ikram-Ul- Haq Memorial Trust Thru. Authorized Signatory Sri Shahbaz Shahab vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Technical Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Virendra Institute of Professional Studies Thru. Authorized Signatory Ramesh Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Technical Education Lko. and Another

M/S Sammohan Advertising through Its Proprietor/Chief Execut Vs Iind Additional Civil Judge Lko.and Ors. Objection Filed

Poonam Singh vs Vaishali Singh and Another

C/M Society Shri Krishna Uchchatar Madhyamik Viddyalaya Thru. Managar Smt.Sanyogita and Another vs Assistant Registrar,Firms,Societies and Chits,Prayagraj and Another