Blog

If a developer has entered into certain agreements, then the subsequent transferees of a project which was developed by the developer and bound by the rules and obligations that a developer has entered into. Neither the transferees nor the developer can deviate from a sanctioned building plan and must stick to what was sanctioned. This was decreed by the two judge bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Hon’ble Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh in the case of Lucknow Omaxe City Residents & Allottees Association & 2 Ors Vs. State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.,Housing & Urban Planning Devel [MISC. BENCH No. – 9591 of 2018]

 The brief facts of the case are, the government had issued an order in 1996 that if any project was being developed in the vicinity of any land belonging to the Gram Samaj, then the developer must leave such lands and also provide an approach road. It was also provided that if providing approach road was not feasible at all, then the value of such parcels of land belonging to Gram Samaj be charged from the Developer. The developer on 14^th December 2006, agreed to provide an equal amount for land in exchange for the gram samaj land and provide an approached road for such an exchanged land. The Lucknow nagar Nigam approved the plan of the developer in exchange for 18 meter wide approach road. However, it was observed that a boundary wall was constructed by the developer on the approach road. The petitioners contended that the developer of the property had promised that the property would be secluded by boundary walls with only one entrance with the safety of a closed township. Since this boundary wall obstructed the Lucknow nagar nigam from accessing the exchanged land, they demolished the wall. Aggrieved by this, the present petition is filed by the petitioners.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is an alternative road to access such a land and the approach road was meant only for the residents of Omaxe City. It was further submitted that the use of the road by general public would affect the privacy and safety of the residents of omaxe city. It was further submitted that the Government Order dated 25th January, 1996 provides only a safeguard for the land offered in exchange of the Gram Samaj land as it should not be a land locked. It never obligated the builder or any person, exchanging the land to provide a road despite there being a pre-existing public road leading to the land given in exchange of Gram Samaj land. It was further submitted that since the petitioners were promised a gated colony/housing project/township and providing access to the Lucknow Nagar Nigam from 18 meters wide road to the proposed project of the Lucknow Nagar Nigam would violate the fundamental promise made by the Developer of exclusive a gated township. However, the counsel for the respondent mentioned that the conditions of exchange of the land specifically provided that the Developer would ensure an approach road to the land offered in exchange. The land of the Gram Samaj was exchanged under this policy and, therefore, neither the Developer nor the petitioner no. 1 or its members, who are assignee/transferee/successor of the Developer can plead anything contrary to this. The learned counsel for the developer (respondent no.6) submitted that the exchange was not possible if the Developer did not agree with providing 18 meters wide approach road to the land. he learned counsel has further submitted that the Developer is bound by the sanctioned building plan, the condition of ‘no objection certificate’ and the condition of exchange.

After listening to the contentions of all the parties, the court held that the The counsel for the Developer has specifically stated that they had agreed to provide 18 meters wide approach road leading to the land of the Lucknow Nagar Nigam and, it was a condition precedent for exchange, otherwise exchange was not possible. Relying on Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 10 SCC 767 , the court held that any allottee, assignee or transferee would be having the same rights and obligations as the Developer and bound by the terms and conditions, as applicable to the Developer. In the current case, the cpurt decreed that since the developer was bound by the condition, the resident petitioners cannot challenge such a condition against the respondents and must seek remedy against the developer for false claims and dismissed the petition.

click here to read the judgement