AMITAVA LALA,J. - (1.) ALL the aforesaid writ petitions filed by the petitioner, Smt. Gurmeet Kaur Kwatra, through power of attorney holder, namely, Ashok Kumar Gupta are connected with each other on account of having arisen out of the dispute related to selfsame property, therefore, the same are being decided by this common judgement having binding effect in all the writ petitions, taking Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44007 of 1998 as leading one.
(2.) IN nutshell, the facts giving rise to the aforesaid writ petitions are that by way of lease-deed executed on 03rd September, 1964, registered on 18th December, 1964, the petitioner was allotted Plot No. 58 in D.I.G. Colony, Khajuri, Varanasi by Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi, now known as Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi (hereinafter in short called as the 'VDA') on lease rent for construction of residential accommodation under Low Income Group Housing Scheme for a period of thirty years renewable for two more terms of thirty years each. Pursuant to said allotment, the petitioner took possession of the plot and got a boundary wall constructed covering the area of allotted plot apart from constructing two rooms. The petitioner was regularly paying lease rent without any default. Before expiry of term of lease-deed the petitioner through her application dated 24th November, 1993 applied for renewal of same in accordance with terms of lease-deed, but VDA did not pass any order on the said application for renewal. However, on 13th April, 1994 VDA published a notice in newspaper calling for reply from the petitioner by 28th April, 1994 to show cause as to why allotment of the said plot in her favour be not cancelled on account of having violated the terms of lease-deed by not getting the construction done within the specified period as extended time to time. It was further mentioned in the notice that if reply is not filed within stipulated period, it will be deemed that you have nothing to say and action will be taken in accordance with law. To the said notice, the petitioner through her power of attorney holder filed reply on 16th May, 1994 stating that she has already constructed two rooms and boundary wall within time but could not complete the same due to death of her husband and has also got the boring done in the plot and is in possession over the plot and further she has not violated any of the terms of lease-deed. Ultimately, she prayed for cancellation of notice dated 13th April, 1994 and extension of lease period for the longest period. According to the petitioner, no decision was taken on such reply/representation, therefore, such circumstances compelled the petitioner to file Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23102 of 1994 before this Court praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the VDA to renew the lease dated 03rd September, 1964 and restraining the VDA from dispossessing the petitioner and allotting the plot in question to some body else. On 27th March, 1998 an interim stay order was passed in the said writ petition not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in dispute and not to allot the same to any one else. According to the petitioner, a copy of the said stay order was served upon the VDA through application dated 02nd April, 1998. Petitioner has been allotted House No. S-8/108-3-Ka with regard to the house existing over the plot in question and she is also paying the relevant taxes regularly. Petitioner had also submitted map with regard to the construction proposed to be raised over the vacant portion, which was sanctioned after realising compounding charges. However, according to the petitioner, on 10th September, 1998 the authorities of VDA seized the house of the petitioner by putting seal and lock at the main gate on the basis of an order dated 09th September, 1998 passed by the Vice-Chairman of the VDA under Section 26A(5) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter in short called as the 'Act') for seizure and recovery of possession. Copy of the said order dated 09th September, 1998 was given to the petitioner on 22nd September, 1998, against which the petitioner submitted a representation on 30th September, 1998. Another order dated 09th September, 1998 purported to have been passed by the Vice-Chairman of VDA under Section 15 (9) of the Act was also given to the petitioner on 22nd September, 1998, which, as per the petitioner, was a show cause notice for cancellation of the map already sanctioned regarding building of the petitioner, against which also the petitioner submitted her representation dated 29/30th September, 1998. Against both the aforesaid orders dated 09th September, 1998 the petitioner has filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35073 of 1998 seeking relief for quashing of both the aforesaid orders dated 09th September, 1998 and also for a writ of mandamus restraining the VDA not to dispossess the petitioner and to remove the seal and lock. In such writ petition an interim order was passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 29th October, 1998 staying operation of the order dated 09th September, 1998 and directing the respondents to remove seal and lock from the house in dispute and not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner.
(3.) HOWEVER , as per the petitioner, on 07th November, 1998 an order dated 09th September, 1998 was served upon the petitioner cancelling allotment and lease dated 03rd September, 1964 and further rejecting the petitioner's applications dated 24th November, 1993 and 16th May, 1994 made for extension of lease. Against this order dated 09th September, 1998 the petitioner has filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44007 of 1998.;