USHA BHARTI v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. INSC 233

FACTS- The controversy is over Plot No. 1/66, Ratan Khand, Sharda Nagar Yojna, Lucknow, allotted by the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA). The petitioner alleges that the plot was allotted to her and she fulfilled all the formalities and paid the amount due to LDA. Due to some mistake, the name of her father, Rama Shanker Bharti, was mistakenly entered instead of her. Rama Shanker Bharti died on 16.12.2012. Smt. Dinesh Kumari, the daughter-in-law of Rama Shanker Bharti, had filed an application for mutation in her favor as per a Registered Will Deed dated 27.11.2012. LDA dismissed her application on 05.01.2021.Smt. Dinesh Kumari filed Writ Petition No. 6265 (MB) of 2021 praying for mutation in her name. The court passed an order that LDA would consider and dispose of her application strictly in accordance with the law.The petitioner filed a representation on 16.03.2021 seeking rectification of the records and execution of the sale deed in her favour. This representation is pending with LDA. The dispute arises between the petitioner and Smt. Dinesh Kumari over ownership and mutation of the plot.

ISSUES- 1)Whether Smt. Dinesh Kumari has a right to the property following the passing of Rama Shanker Bharti, as stated in the Registered Will Deed dated November 27, 2012. 2)If the petitioner claims to have fulfilled all requirements and submitted the whole sum, is the LDA required to execute the sale deed in the petitioner's favour? 3) According to the Registered Will Deed, does Smt. Dinesh Kumari or the petitioner, the purported original allottee, have the legal claim to the contested plot?

HOLDINGS- The Court left the matter to the LDA to settle in accordance with the law, emphasising procedural fairness and making sure that both claimants receive a fair hearing.The petitioner's representation dated 16.03.2021 concerning the execution of the sale deed and the repair of the property records was to be reviewed and decided by the Vice Chairman of the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA).

RATIONALE- The court acknowledged that the petitioner and Smt. Dinesh Kumari had conflicting claims to the land. The involved entity (Lucknow Development entity) is best suited to conduct the factual investigation necessary for the resolution of such a problem.Both Smt. Dinesh Kumari's prior claim (addressed in Writ Petition No. 6265 (MB) of 2021) and the petitioner's representation dated 16.03.2021 were still pending before the LDA. The court decided that the authority needed to take care of these unresolved issues.In order to ensure adherence to natural justice principles, the court emphasised the significance of providing all claimants—including Opposite Party No. 4—with an equitable opportunity to submit their case.In order to balance judicial efficiency with procedural fairness, the court established a clear three-month deadline for the LDA to consider the dispute, acknowledging the delay in resolution. In this instance, the court has taken a practical and sound procedural approach, concentrating on upholding natural justice without going beyond its authority by getting involved in factual disagreements. The court protects the interests of all claimants and places an emphasis on a just and effective resolution by ordering the Lucknow Development Authority to make a decision after hearing from all sides. However, considering the length of the disagreement, the three-month period is essential to preventing more delays. All things considered, the ruling demonstrates a fair judicial philosophy, guaranteeing that the legitimate claimant is identified via an exhaustive, open procedure while honouring the authority of the appropriate body.