In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court quashed the order withdrawing a sanctioned building map for petitioner Smt. Richa Singh, affirming that the alleged concealment of litigation was not a “material fact” substantial enough to revoke the sanction. The decision, rendered by Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Jayant Banerji, emphasizes the court’s stance on what constitutes a “material fact” in urban development cases.
Background of the Case
The case revolves around a disputed plot in Prayagraj, involving land measuring approximately 1123.75 sq. meters, comprising portions of plots 361, 362, 363, and 365. Originally, these lands were held by Mohd. Suleman and Mohd. Iqbal Ahmad but were later partially declared surplus under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976. The complexity arose as some portions of these plots were acquired, while others were not, leading to overlapping claims.
In 2011, Smt. Richa Singh purchased the unacquired portions through multiple registered sale deeds, built a boundary wall, and submitted a building plan for official sanction. After a detailed inspection, the Prayagraj Development Authority granted this sanction in June 2023. However, in early 2024, the authority reversed its decision, alleging that Singh had concealed ongoing litigation regarding the property.
Legal Issues
The primary issue hinged on whether the petitioner’s omission to mention a 2018 ongoing status quo order, relating to a dispute against further construction on the property, constituted “material concealment.” The respondents argued that this omission invalidated the petitioner’s sanctioned building plan, claiming that it misrepresented the property’s legal status.
The petitioner’s counsel, Senior Advocate Kunal Shah, asserted that the status quo order did not materially impact the nature or validity of the sanction, especially since the petitioner was already established as the rightful owner, as indicated in inspection reports. Counsel argued that the omission, if any, was unintentional and did not advantage the petitioner or disadvantage the authority.
Key Arguments and Court’s Observations
Justice Mishra’s judgment underscored the distinction between mere non-disclosure and material concealment, stating, “Nothing of substance turns upon what is alleged to have been concealed by the petitioner… the so-called concealment did not have any material bearing upon the application for sanction of a building plan.”
The court quoted relevant Supreme Court rulings, notably from Arunima Baruah vs. Union of India, which assert that suppression of fact must be “material for the purpose of determination of the lis.” It held that the alleged concealment did not impact the building plan’s validity as it was unrelated to any substantive issue in the case.
The Court’s Decision
Allowing the writ petition, the court overturned the Prayagraj Development Authority’s revocation order, restoring the original building plan sanctioned in 2023. Additionally, the court directed that if the building’s completion deadline has expired, the authority should provide a reasonable extension upon the petitioner’s application.
