The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has held that the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad acted arbitrarily and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The Parishad had kept land transfers it completed itself under repeated enquiries, and none of those enquiries produced an adverse finding. Allowing three writ petitions, the Court barred the Parishad from reopening the petitioners’ entitlement to the land on the same allegations. It directed the Parishad to decide the pending layout plan and additional FAR application within eight weeks.
A Bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai was hearing petitions filed by N.F.S. Infradevelopers LLP, Uttar Railway Doorsanchar Sahkari Awas Samiti and N.R. Karamchari Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd.
Background
The Parishad acquired land for its Siddharth Vihar Yojna in Ghaziabad. Large-scale protests and litigation by tenure holders followed, and the Parishad negotiated settlements. Under the U.P. State Urban Housing and Rehabilitation Policy, 2014, 22 tenure holders were given land. They later formed the LLP, and a sale deed was executed in its favour. The two housing cooperative societies were allotted 50% of the undeveloped land under a Government Order dated 22.10.2002. A sale deed was executed for the second petitioner, and the third petitioner got a registered agreement.
After a complaint in 2022, the State Government and the Parishad ordered a series of enquiries. The Court listed five enquiry reports, and all of them found no illegality in the allotments. The only adverse report was the Housing Commissioner’s report dated 17.08.2023, and the committee headed by the Chief Town and Country Planner later rejected it. Even so, the Board kept deferring the matter across several meetings and ordered fresh enquiries. Meanwhile, the LLP’s application for additional purchasable FAR was rejected because the Board had not yet accepted the enquiry findings.
Arguments
Senior Advocates Jaideep Narain Mathur and Upendra Nath Mishra, assisted by Advocate Apoorva Tewari, appeared for the petitioners. They argued that once the sale deeds were executed, the Parishad had no authority to revisit the transactions, and that the repeated enquiries were arbitrary and mala fide. They also argued that the societies had received only 50% of undeveloped land against an entitlement of 80%.
Senior Advocate Gaurav Mehrotra, assisted by Advocate Ratnesh Chandra, appeared for the Parishad. He submitted that the enquiry was being conducted on the State Government’s directions under Section 92 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965. He argued that the committee reports were only recommendatory, and that directing approval of FAR at this stage would pre-empt the Board’s decision.
Court’s Findings
The Court accepted that a housing board may check whether its allotments are lawful. However, it held that “The mere existence of administrative power to enquire into a transaction cannot be construed as conferring unrestricted authority to repeatedly reopen a concluded matter in the absence of any fresh material or legally sustainable justification.”
The Court also noted that the State Government had not filed a counter affidavit despite repeated opportunities. It observed: “An enquiry is intended to ascertain facts and arrive at a conclusion. It cannot become an endless administrative exercise, with the consequence that the rights and legitimate interests of a citizen or an institution remain indefinitely suspended.”
It directed the Parishad to decide the pending applications and “stop harassment of petitioners in name of successive enquiries as a hanging sword of damocles.”
The Bench further said that “Administrative authorities are expected to act consistently and cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate according to the changing perceptions of the officers occupying different positions at different points of time.”
The Court held that the petitioners’ entitlement to the land and the approval of their development plans are separate questions and cannot be mixed. It said the Parishad “cannot achieve indirectly, by withholding development permissions, what it has not been able to establish through the enquiries undertaken by it.”
Outcome
The Court declared the Parishad’s action arbitrary and unsustainable in law. It barred the Parishad from reopening the petitioners’ entitlement to the land on allegations already examined. The Parishad must decide the layout plan and additional FAR application on its merits within eight weeks, keeping in mind the approval it granted to M/s Adarsh Nagar Pragitisheel Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. on 06.10.2025. Any deficiencies must be communicated through a reasoned order.
The Court said it was expressing no view on the exact FAR permissible. It also clarified that the judgment does not dispense with any lawful statutory requirement or development charge.
Case Title: Nfs Infra Developers Llp, Thru. its Partner Nisar Ahamad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 2 others (with connected petitions)
Case No.: Writ-C No. 5293 of 2026, Writ-C No. 5294 of 2026 and Writ-C No. 8995 of 2026
Bench: Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai
Date: 12.11.2026
