The Allahabad High Court has underscored the sanctity of property rights under Article 300A of the Indian Constitution, asserting that the right to property inherently includes the right to develop it, subject to reasonable regulations. In a significant judgment, the court ruled against NOIDA’s decision to reject a building plan on arbitrary grounds, emphasizing that regulatory powers cannot be wielded to curtail fundamental rights unjustly.
Background of the Case
The case, Kapil Misra & Another v. State of U.P. and Others (WRIT-C No. 3944 of 2024), involved a dispute over property rights and regulatory compliance. The petitioners, Kapil Misra and another co-owner, originally owned land in Village Rohillapur, Sector 132, NOIDA, which was acquired by the State in 2006 for development purposes. The acquisition was quashed in 2009 by the High Court on the petitioners’ challenge, restoring their ownership.
Subsequently, NOIDA entered into a deed of exchange in 2011, granting the petitioners an equivalent parcel of land in Village Sardarpur, Sector 45, NOIDA. This decision was made during NOIDA’s 171st Board Meeting and was intended to compensate the petitioners for the continued use of their original land by the authority.
In 2021, the petitioners applied for sanction of a building plan for the exchanged land under the New Okhla Industrial Development Area Building Regulations, 2010. However, the application was rejected on September 11, 2023, citing the absence of a lease deed, which NOIDA argued was mandatory. A subsequent revision filed with the State Government was also dismissed in April 2024. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court, challenging these decisions.
Legal Issues Involved
The case revolved around several critical legal questions:
1. Validity of the Deed of Exchange
The petitioners argued that the deed of exchange was a valid instrument of ownership under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and should be recognized as equivalent to a lease deed for regulatory purposes.
2. Right to Property under Article 300A
The petitioners contended that the rejection of their building plan amounted to a deprivation of their property rights without lawful authority, violating Article 300A of the Constitution.
3. Interpretation of Regulatory Provisions
NOIDA argued that its Building Regulations, 2010, mandated a lease deed for approval of building plans, and a deed of exchange did not fulfill this requirement. The petitioners countered that this interpretation was arbitrary and contrary to the Act’s intent.
4. Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation
The petitioners invoked this doctrine, arguing that NOIDA’s decision to enter into a deed of exchange created a legitimate expectation that they could develop the exchanged property.
Court’s Decision
The single-judge bench of Justice Alok Mathur ruled in favor of the petitioners, delivering a landmark judgment with far-reaching implications for property rights and regulatory practices. The court made the following key observations:
1. Recognition of Deed of Exchange as Ownership Proof
The court held that the deed of exchange was a valid instrument of ownership under the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, and the accompanying regulations. It stated, “Merely because the instrument by which the land has been vested in the petitioner is not a lease deed, cannot be a ground for rejection of the application for sanction of map.”
2. Right to Property Includes Right to Develop
The court emphasized that the right to property under Article 300A includes the right to construct and develop, subject to reasonable regulations. It noted, “Denial of sanction of map is depriving an individual of his right to property, and the same can be done only with the sanction of law.”
3. Balancing Individual Rights and Public Interest
While recognizing NOIDA’s mandate for planned development, the court observed that regulatory powers cannot override fundamental rights. Citing Supreme Court precedents, it remarked, “Restrictions on property rights must be reasonable and should not render them illusory.”
4. Legislative Intent and Liberal Interpretation
The court rejected NOIDA’s narrow interpretation of the Building Regulations, 2010, and clarified that the regulatory framework must align with the broader legislative intent of promoting planned development without arbitrarily curtailing property rights.
The court quashed NOIDA’s rejection of the petitioners’ building plan and directed the authority to reconsider the application in light of its observations.
