Court Summons Senior Official After State Government Fails to Report Decision on Committee's Findings Regarding 59-Acre Unauthorized Land Transfer
The Allahabad High Court's Division Bench comprising Justices Rajan Roy and Manjive Shukla has taken a stern view of the State Government's inordinate delay in responding to its directive regarding an alleged illegal sale of leased land in Uttar Pradesh. In a significant development in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 529 of 2022, the Court has summoned the Additional Chief Secretary (ACS) of the concerned department to appear in person and explain the reasons for the delay in filing a supplementary counter affidavit on the decisions taken regarding a committee's investigative report.
The PIL, filed by Lokesh Kumar Khurana, centers on serious allegations that approximately 59 acres out of 117 acres of leased land granted to a private company under the Government Grants Act, 1895, was sold without obtaining requisite permission from the State Government. According to the petitioner, this unauthorized transfer violated the fundamental terms and conditions of the original lease deed executed on September 21, 1972. Additionally, the petitioner alleged that the remaining land has been misused for purposes other than those stipulated in the original lease agreement.
The Court's investigation revealed a complex history involving the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (B.I.F.R.), wherein the State Government was a party to a settlement. The private respondents argued that the land transfers were not "sales" in the traditional sense, but rather bifurcations resulting from corporate restructuring—specifically, land being allocated to Modi Rubber Ltd., Modi Tyre Pvt. Ltd., and Continental (India) Pvt. Ltd. as part of a revival and rehabilitation scheme. The respondents further contended that the remaining land continues to be utilized for industrial purposes consistent with the original lease, and that educational facilities (a school) were established to serve the industrial township's workforce.
However, a critical turning point occurred when the State Government's own investigating committee submitted a report contradicting the private respondents' position. According to the committee's findings, the transfer of land was indeed "illegal and without consent of the State Government." This finding significantly strengthened the petitioner's allegations and prompted the Court to seek clarity on the State Government's intended course of action.
In its order dated October 8, 2025, the Court directed the State Government to file a supplementary counter affidavit detailing what decision had been taken on the committee's report. The case was scheduled for hearing on October 31, 2025. However, when the matter came up for hearing on September 1, 2026, the respondents sought an additional three weeks' adjournment without providing the required information or decision.
The Court's patience with the delay has evidently worn thin. Justice Roy and Justice Shukla have now issued a contempt-laden order directing the Additional Chief Secretary of the department responsible for taking decisions on the committee's report to appear before the Court at 12 o'clock on September 2, 2026. The ACS has been specifically directed to explain: (1) why the information sought by the Court on October 8, 2025, has not been provided even after nearly a year; (2) if no decision has been taken, what are the reasons for this inaction; and (3) why no supplementary counter affidavit has been filed despite the Court's clear directive.
This development underscores the judicial system's determination to ensure governmental accountability and timely compliance with court orders, particularly in matters of public interest involving potential misuse of public resources. The case represents a broader concern about the use and misuse of land grants, especially those granted under historical legislation like the Government Grants Act, 1895, and the need for strict adherence to lease conditions and governmental oversight.
The outcome of tomorrow's hearing is expected to provide critical clarity on whether the State Government intends to take remedial action against the alleged illegal transfer or whether there are administrative hurdles preventing decision-making at the highest levels of government. The PIL also raises important questions about the adequacy of monitoring mechanisms for such valuable public assets and whether current administrative procedures are sufficient to prevent unauthorized transfers in the future.
Legal experts suggest that this case could set important precedents regarding the interpretation of lease conditions granted under historical land grant legislation and the extent to which the State can exercise control over such grants when violations are alleged.
Bottom Line:
Public Interest Litigation - Allegation of illegal sale and misuse of leased land granted under the Government Grants Act, 1895 - Court directed the concerned department to provide information on the decision taken regarding the report submitted by the committee investigating the matter - Failure to respond led to the court summoning the Additional Chief Secretary of the concerned department to explain the delay.
Statutory Provision(s)
Government Grants Act, 1895; Code of Civil Procedure.
Lokesh Kumar Khurana v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2971361
