JUDGMENT Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioner for allotment of plot by the Lucknow Development Authority (in short, the LDA). 2. Present controversy is an instance which shows how the citizens are put for financial hardships, mental pain and agony by the development authorities with regard to allotment of plot/flats. Apart from the financial hardships, citizens use to run from pillar to post on account of lacklustre attitude of development authorities having scant regard to law in spite of repeated judgments of this Court and the Apex Court dealing with the subject-matter. The affair is unfortunate and it appears that we have failed to develop ‘work culture’ and fairness in the premises of development authorities. 3. In pursuance of the advertisement, inviting applications for registration between 1.11.2002 to 30.11.2002 under Mansarovar, Kanpur Road, Awasiya Yojana, Lucknow (Annexure 1 to the writ petition), the petitioner applied for registration with regard to allotment of plot on 28.11.2002. Being successful, an allotment letter dated 22.2.2003 was issued to the petitioner (Annexure 3 to the writ petition), allotting plot No. C-2/63, measuring an area of 200 sq. metres in Sector-P, Kanpur Road, Lucknow against registration No. 2374356. It appears that the petitioner deposited entire cost of the plot No. C-2/63, within time prescribed in terms of allotment letter. The petitioner thereafter made a request for execution of sale-deed but he failed to get any response. 4. Ultimately, by another allotment letter dated 18.9.2008 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition), another plot was allotted bearing No. 2/216, Sector-P, Kanpur Road, Mansarovar Scheme. By the said letter dated 18.9.2008, the petitioner was required to deposit an additional amount of Rs. 40,000/- in the Office of LDA for execution of sale-deed. The petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 40,000/- and in consequence thereof, a sale-deed dated 22.11.2008 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) was executed by the LDA with regard to Plot No. 2/216, Sector-P, Mansarovar Scheme Kanpur Road, Lucknow. After execution of sale-deed, the petitioner requested the LDA to deliver the possession of the plot but it appears that respondent LDA failed to deliver the physical possession of plot to the petitioner. 5. After execution of sale-deed, the petitioner requested the LDA to deliver the possession of the plot but it appears that respondent LDA failed to deliver the physical possession of plot to the petitioner. 5. For a period of 4 years, the petitioner kept running from pillar to post for getting physical possession of Plot No. 2/216 (supra), but it was not handed over to him. Again, by another letter dated 7.8.2012 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition), the petitioner was informed that on account of undeveloped area as well as because of possession could not be taken over, from the recorded tenure holders, another plot No. C-4/62, Sector-O, Mansarovar Scheme is allotted on the same terms and conditions with the rider that only half of stamp duty shall be borne out by the LDA. Thus, after lapse of almost 4 years from the second allotment, the petitioner was allotted third plot by the LDA with the financial loss of 50% stamp duty payable for registration. Another sale-deed was executed on 23.1.2013 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition). 6. It appears that even the physical possession of third plot bearing plot No. C-4/62, Sector-O, Mansarovar Scheme has not been handed over to the petitioner by the LDA. A representation dated 23.8.2013 with regard to physical possession of plot No. C-4/62, Sector-O, Mansarovar Scheme sent by the petitioner to the Vice-Chairman, LDA, has been filed as Annexure 8 to the writ petition. 7. The Executive Engineer, LDA, informed the petitioner that on account of interference by recorded tenure holders and in absence of any report from the Land Acquisition Officer, the delivery of the plot is not possible and, as and when appropriate information is received, the possession of the plot shall be delivered. When the petitioner was not given physical possession of the plot, then feeling aggrieved with the inaction on the part of the respondents, he has preferred the instant writ petition with the prayer that possession of the plot allotted to him, be delivered forthwith. 8. It has been pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioner is a Government employee retired 12 years back, and having a dream of his own house, he had applied for the plot in question. 9. 8. It has been pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioner is a Government employee retired 12 years back, and having a dream of his own house, he had applied for the plot in question. 9. Submission of petitioner’s counsel is that by not giving the possession of plot in question as well as change of plots by the LDA after execution of sale-deed (supra) not only amounts to arbitrary exercise of power, may be for extraneous reasons or consideration, but also amounts to unjust enrichment of LDA on the amount deposited by the allottee without making payment of interest thereon. It has further been submitted that burden lies on LDA to ensure that whatever land is acquired, must be away from dispute and allotment of plots to the citizens should be done only after getting the possession of land acquired for development purpose. Any allotment made without due acquisition of land followed by the possession of by the LDA, is the instance of non-application of mind and anti-thesis of rule of law. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled for interest right from the execution of first sale-deed on the amount deposited by him as well as compensation from the LDA for not delivering possession of plot within reasonable period that too, after execution of sale-deed. The allottee cannot be held responsible for inaction or non-application of mind or arbitrary exercise of power on the part of LDA. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the cases in S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India and others, (1967) 2 SCR 702; Zenit Mataplast Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2009) 10 SCC 388 ; Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and others, (2010) 9 SCC 655 ; NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association v. NOIDA and others, 2011(6) ADJ 13 (SC); Ganesh Prasad v. L.D.A. Lucknow and others, 2012(1) ADJ 247 (DB)(LB); Rashid Umar v. The Chairman L.D.A. Lucknow and others, 2013(10) ADJ 554 (DB)(LB); Dr. Kailash Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2013(11) ADJ 507 (DB)(LB). 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the LDA vehemently defended the action of LDA on the ground that in spite of all efforts done by the LDA, possession of land with regard to plot allotted to the petitioner, could not be taken on account of agitation of recorded tenure holders. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the LDA vehemently defended the action of LDA on the ground that in spite of all efforts done by the LDA, possession of land with regard to plot allotted to the petitioner, could not be taken on account of agitation of recorded tenure holders. It has further been submitted that on account of protest by Kisan Union, the land acquired by notification in the year 1976 and possession handed over to the LDA in 1977 and payment of compensation through award in the year 1979 to the recorded tenure holders, on account of protest of Kisan Union, the possession could not be delivered to the petitioner and some other allottees. It is also submitted that a letter was sent by the Vice-Chairman to the District Magistrate, Lucknow on 5.7.2014 to provide assistance so that possession may be delivered to the petitioner and some other persons. On account of protest by the Kisan Union i.e., Janotthan Samiti, Behsa of which one Chandrasen Yadav is President, the possession could not be taken. It is also submitted that some of the villagers are obstructing to the development work on unfounded ground that the plot No. C-4/59, C-4/78 were ponds. Learned counsel for the LDA categorically stated that in Revenue record, the plot in question has never been recorded as pond. 12. Be that as it may, the allottees cannot be put to suffer for delay for any reason whatsoever in the matter of delivering possession of land in pursuance of sale-deed executed by the LDA. It is for the LDA to ensure that allotment followed by execution of sale-deed is to be done only in case the LDA is in actual possession of the land/allotted plots. So far as the obstruction created by some association and union is concerned, the LDA being instrumentality of State, burden lies on State Government to provide necessary assistance to LDA to discharge its obligation. In case, after execution of sale-deed immediately, possession is not delivered, then it shall be incumbent on the development authorities to pay reasonable interest to the allottees on the cost of land or plot deposited. 13. In SG Jaisinghani’s case (supra), their lordships of Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasised that absence of arbitrary power is first essence of rule of law upon which our whole constitutional system is based. 13. In SG Jaisinghani’s case (supra), their lordships of Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasised that absence of arbitrary power is first essence of rule of law upon which our whole constitutional system is based. In a system governed by rule of law, discretion when conferred on executive authorities, must be confined within clearly defined limits. The decision should be predictable and citizens should know where he is. On these broader principles, the authorities have to apply mind and be conscious to ensure that while acquiring land followed by allotment and execution of sale-deed, for the purpose of construction of house or flats the possession is handed over immediately without any obstruction and in case, there is any obstruction, that should be removed by using force. 14. In Zenit Mataplast’s case (supra), their lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court held that development authorities being instrumentalities of States, must act fairly and once land is allotted to a particular citizen, it cannot be allotted to other person. In case, it is done, it shall be arbitrary exercise of power and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Their lordships further held that by judicial review, the act of the State and its instrumentalities must be examined to ensure that the statutory authority has not acted with arbitrariness, bias or favouritism, and may also grant interim injunction in case situation becomes irretrievable. 15. In Hari Bansh Lal (supra), their lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that it is impermissible for the Government to take a different stand unless there is change of circumstances. While taking a different stand, a plausible explanation may be given by the Government. 16. In NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association (supra) Hon’ble Supreme held as under : “38. The State or the public authority which holds the property for the public or which has been assigned the duty of grant of largessee, etc. acts as a trustee and, therefore, has to act fairly and reasonably. Every holder of a public office by virtue of which he acts on behalf of the State or public body is ultimately accountable to the people in whom the sovereignty vests. As such, all powers so vested in him are meant to be exercised for public good and promoting the public interest. Every holder of a public office by virtue of which he acts on behalf of the State or public body is ultimately accountable to the people in whom the sovereignty vests. As such, all powers so vested in him are meant to be exercised for public good and promoting the public interest. Every holder of a public office is a trustee.” Needless to say that in case development authority acts in arbitrary manner and without application of mind which may amount to keep the allottees waiting for years to come even after execution of sale-deed with regard to delivery of possession, means authorities have not exercised power for public good and shall not be deemed to promoting the public interest. 17. In Rashid Umar (supra), where the map of allottee was rejected on one hand and to other allottee, it was sanctioned with regard to construction of house, the Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Devi Prasad Singh) was a member, held that action of development authorities amounts to treat equals unequally, which is not permissible. Keeping in view the fact that the allottee was kept on waiting for decades and the map was unaltered, was not sanctioned to enable the allottee to construct the house, the Division Bench held as under : “17. In view of the above, it appears that the petitioner has been deprived from the lawful use of the plot (supra) allotted to him by LDA on unfounded grounds in an extremely high handedness and arbitrary manner. The map submitted by the petitioner to construct his house, has been rejected on unfounded grounds. In consequence thereof, the petitioner has suffered since more than a decade to provide shelter to his family or to enjoy lawful property rights. It is a fit case where writ petition be allowed with exemplary costs in view of cases in Salem Advocate Bar Association (II) v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344 ; Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2010 (2) SCC 114 , in addition to the relief which the petitioner may claim for damages from the LDA, through a competent forum or Court. The relief claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition is also modified to meet the ends of justice. 18. “Food, cloth and shelter” are the basic amenities of human requirement in a civilized society. The relief claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition is also modified to meet the ends of justice. 18. “Food, cloth and shelter” are the basic amenities of human requirement in a civilized society. Right to life does not mean to animal living. The application moved by the citizens for allotment of flats or plots to the development authorities or the colonizers, depends upon various factors like cost subject to financial capacity, location of plot and surrounding area etc. All these factors co-relate to the quality of life as well as dignity which is fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India vide, Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295 ; State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan Tale, AIR 1983 SC 803 ; Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. U.O.I., AIR 1984 SC 802 ; Maneka Gandhi v. U.O.I., AIR 1978 SC 597 ; Board of Tustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilip Kumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni, AIR 1983 SC 109 . Accordingly, once the cost of plot or flat is deposited, then it shall be incumbent on development authorities as well as colonizers to deliver the possession of plot or flats to the allottee within reasonable period. In case not delivered, then allottee shall be entitled to interest as well as damages, vide, Ganesh Prasad v. L.D.A. and others, 2012(1) ADJ 247 (DB)(LB) (supra). 19. Ordinarily, it is not permissible for development authorities as well as colonizers to shift the place of allotted plot or flat to an another place or cancel the allotment merely on payment of interest unless they have some justifiable, compelling and lawful reasons to do so. In that case also it shall be always incumbent on the development authorities or colonizers to allot the same nature and category of flats or plots to such allottees. A justifiable compelling and lawful reason, for example may be where the development authorities’ own title of the property has been revoked. In case development authorities or the colonizers continue with lawful possession of the area which has been allotted to the allottees, then in such a situation, they will not have right to cancel the allotment or shift the place of allotment to other area may be, with a provision to refund the amount deposited by the allottees for the purpose with interest. Subject to above, in any case, for some lawful reason, the possession is not delivered and allotment cannot be materialised, then it shall be obligatory on the part of the development authorities or the colonizers to provide other plot or flat as the case may be, on the same cost which has been deposited by the allottee. The reason is that at a point of time when the citizen books the flat or plot at a location of his or her choice, the decision is taken keeping in view the financial viability as well as location. It is not necessary that after sufficient long period, the citizen will be able to purchase a plot or flat on the revised price. Hence they cannot be penalised for commission or omission on the part of the development authorities or the colonizers.” 18. In one another case of Ganesh Prasad (supra), the Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Devi Prasad Singh) was a member and author of the judgment, after considering catena of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, has held that after depositing entire cost of plot or flat in case the allottee is kept waiting for decades, then it shall amount to unjust enrichment. In such a situation, the allottee shall be entitled for compensation in the form of interest assessed at the rate of 8% per cent. For convenience, relevant portion of para 99 is reproduced as under : “99. Admittedly, the petitioner Ganesh Prasad has deposited the entire cost of plot in the year 1984. The entire cost deposited by the petitioner, is lying with the L.D.A. On the one hand, the petitioner has suffered mental pain, agony and financial loss and could not get the possession of plot to construct his own house in the city of Lucknow, on the other, from the money deposited by the petitioner Ganesh Prasad, the L.D.A. Invested the amount in its business. It is the instance of unjust enrichment. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India and others, (2011) 8 SCC 161 , has defined the “unjust enrichment as under: “UNJUST ENRICHMENT “152. It is the instance of unjust enrichment. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India and others, (2011) 8 SCC 161 , has defined the “unjust enrichment as under: “UNJUST ENRICHMENT “152. `Unjust enrichment’ has been defined by the Court as the unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another, or the retention of money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience. A person is enriched if he has received a benefit, and he is unjustly enriched if retention of the benefit would be unjust. Unjust enrichment of a person occurs when he has and retains money or benefits which in justice and equity belong to another. 153. Unjust enrichment is “the unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another, or the retention of money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience.” A defendant may be liable “even when the defendant retaining the benefit is not a wrongdoer” and “even though he may have received [it] honestly in the first instance.” (Schock v. Nash, A.2d, 232-33). 159. Unjust enrichment is basic to the subject of restitution, and is indeed approached as a fundamental principle thereof. They are usually linked together, and restitution is frequently based upon the theory of unjust enrichment. However, although unjust enrichment is often referred to or regarded as a ground for restitution, it is perhaps more accurate to regard it as a prerequisite, for usually there can be no restitution without unjust enrichment. It is defined as the unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another or the retention of money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience. A person is enriched if he has received a benefit, and he is unjustly enriched if retention of the benefit would be unjust. Unjust enrichment of a person occurs when he has and retains money or benefits which in justice and equity belong to another.” The Division Bench while holding that non-delivery of plot/flat after deposition of cost, amounts to unjust enrichment, further held that the allottee shall be entitled for payment of interest on the amount deposited for the purpose, to quote para 101 as under : “101. In view of the above, since the cost of plot deposited by the petitioner Ganesh Prasad as full and final payment in the year 1984, was lying with L.D.A., and possession has not been delivered on account of abuse of power (supra), the petitioner Ganesh Prasad shall be entitled for compensation in the form of interest which is assessed at the rate of 8% per annuam with effect from 1.1.1985.” In the case of Ganesh Prasad (supra), the Division Bench further held as under : 120. “To curb and control that brute and to prevent the degeneration of society into a slate of tooth and claw, we need the rule of law. We also need the rule of law for punishing all deviations and lapses from the code of conduct and standards of behaviour which the community, speaking through its representatives, has prescribed as the law of the land. Being human, disputes are bound to arise amongst us. For the settlement of those disputes, we need guidelines in the form of laws, forums to redress the wrongs in the form of Courts, tribunals and advisers who could guide us in the affairs of law, who could represent us in the Court of law and in whom we could repose our confidence”. Subject to above discussion, the Division Bench further issued direction to State Government to create a statutory post or authorise an officer in the Development Authorities of State of U.P., and other departments to decide or adjudicate the public complaints. The mandamus issued by the Division Bench is reproduced as under : “(3) A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the State Government/Principal Secretary, Urban Planning, Government of U.P., to consider to create a statutory post or authorise an officer in the Development Authorities of State of U.P., and other departments to decide or adjudicate the complaints with regard to public grievance/misfeasance in public office in the matter of allotments of lands or plots, payment of interest and compensation and other disputes, etc., within specified period. The decision given by the Officer/authority so authorised, should be final and binding on the departments.” 19. Learned counsel for the L.D.A., vehemently argued that the matter may be referred to arbitration. The decision given by the Officer/authority so authorised, should be final and binding on the departments.” 19. Learned counsel for the L.D.A., vehemently argued that the matter may be referred to arbitration. We feel that in such a case, where the litigant may suffer with irretrievable consequences that too, when the matter is hanging for more than 11 years, reference of the matter to the Arbitrator would not be a proper remedy. There appears to be no reason to refer the matter to the Arbitrator who lacks power to enforce earlier judgment of this Court and of Apex Court and also lacks power to direct the district authorities to provide requisite police force for delivery of possession of plot or flat. 20. In the case of Dr. Kailash Singh (supra), in a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Devi Prasad Singh) was a member, issued directed for constitution of special task force to stop obstruction created by unruly elements in delivering possession of land or plot. Relevant portion from the judgment of Dr. Kailash Singh (supra), is reproduced as under : “15. We have been informed by learned Standing Counsel that nodal officers have been appointed to look into such matters, but, we feel that the nodal officers have failed to discharge their obligations except indulging into negotiations with the persons who interfere with the constructions of the houses of the lawful allotttees and keep the matter pending for an indefinite period. Accordingly, we dispose of both the writ petitions finally with the following directions : 1. The District Magistrate/Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow shall constitute a Task Force containing sufficient number of persons of Arm Forces like P.A.C. headed by the Sub. Divisional Magistrate and a Deputy Superintendent of Police to deal with such complaints where any person/association or union interferes with the construction work raised by lawful allottee in the city or district of Lucknow. More than one Task Force may be established to meet out the requirement in the district. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow shall appoint a police officer not below the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police to monitor the functioning of the Task Force so constituted. District Magistrate Lucknow shall nominate an Additional District Magistrate to provide necessary assistance. 2. More than one Task Force may be established to meet out the requirement in the district. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow shall appoint a police officer not below the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police to monitor the functioning of the Task Force so constituted. District Magistrate Lucknow shall nominate an Additional District Magistrate to provide necessary assistance. 2. Whenever, a complaint is received that Lucknow Development Authority or U.P. Housing Board has allotted a plot which is a water reservoir or is a pond, then respective Development Authority or Housing Board, shall look into such complaint and in case, in the revenue record, it is found that the said plot is a water reservoir or a pond, then alternative accommodation shall be provided to such allottee immediately say within a period of two months after recording the finding with due communication to the complainant. The Development Authority or the Housing Board, Lucknow shall appoint an officer to look into such complaints to decide whether the plot allotted to an allottee is a water reservoir or a pond in the revenue record or not. Opportunity of hearing shall be provided to the complainant. 3. Right of a citizen to protest against unlawful action of development authority is a fundamental right, but, that protest may be made at appropriate place (not at the allottted plot or vicinity) without disturbing the peace and tranquility of the society and also without interfering with the right of a peaceful enjoyment of the property by a lawful allottee. 4. Whenever, a complaint is received that the lawful allottee intending to raise construction over the premises in pursuance of the sanctioned plan is being prevented by anti-social elements or person or a group of persons or by an association, the Task Force so constituted shall ensure to remove such hurdle and shall further ensure that lawful allottee is permitted to raise construction over the plot in pursuance of the sanction plan and requisite number of police force shall be deployed for the security of the allottee during the construction work, if necessary. It shall be open to police to register F.I.R. and proceed in accordance to law against disturbing elements.” 21. We have been informed that the judgment of Ganesh Prasad (supra), has attained finality after dismissal of SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the judgment in the case of Dr. It shall be open to police to register F.I.R. and proceed in accordance to law against disturbing elements.” 21. We have been informed that the judgment of Ganesh Prasad (supra), has attained finality after dismissal of SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the judgment in the case of Dr. Kailash Singh also has attained finality being not turned down by the higher forum. 22. Under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, (in short the Act), the development authority has been conferred power for disposal of land which has been acquired by the Government for development purpose under Section 17 of the Act. Section 18 deals with the disposal of land by the authority or local authority. For convenience, Section 18 of the Act is reproduced as under : 18. Disposal of land by the Authority or the local Authority concerned.— (1) Subject to any directions given by the State Government in this behalf, the Authority or, as the case may be, the local Authority concerned may dispose of— (a) any land acquired by the State Government and transferred to it, without undertaking or carrying out any development thereon; or (b) any such land after undertaking or carrying out such development as it thinks fit. to such persons, in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions as it considers expedient for securing the development of the development area according to plan. (2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as enabling the Authority or the local Authority concerned to dispose of land by way of gift,(***) but subject thereto, references in this Act, to the disposal of land shall be construed as references to the disposal thereof in any manner, whether by way of sale, exchange or lease or by the creation of any easement, right or privilege or otherwise. (3) Notwithstanding, anything contained in Sub-section (2), the Authority or the local Authority concerned may create a mortgage or charge over such land (including any building thereon) in favour of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. the Housing and Urban Development Corporation, or a banking company as defined in the Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 or any other financial institution approved by general or special order in this behalf by the State Government. the Housing and Urban Development Corporation, or a banking company as defined in the Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 or any other financial institution approved by general or special order in this behalf by the State Government. [(4) Where vacant land has been disposed of under this section by way of lease for making constructions within the time with right of forfeiture of the lease and re-entry upon failure to make constructions within such time, and the lessee fails without sufficient reason, to make the constructions or a substantial portion thereof, within the stipulated time or such extended time as the lessor may grant, the lessor may, [subject to the provisions of Sub-section (4-A) forfeit] the lease and re-enter upon the land: Provided that no forfeiture and re-entry shall be made unless the lessee has been allowed reasonable opportunity to show-cause against the proposed action. [(4-A) Where a lessee fails to make construction within the stipulated time, and the extended time, if any, under sub-section (4) so that the total period from the date of lease exceeds five years, a charge at the rate of two per cent of the prevailing market value of the concerned land shall be realised every year from him by the lessor and if from the date of imposition of the said charge a further period of five years elapses the lease shall stand forfeited and the lessor shall re-enter upon the land : [Provided that where the period of five years has expired before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development (Amendment) Act, 1997, or where the period of five years expires within one year after such commencement, the charge shall be realizable after a period of one year from the date of such commencement.] (5) Upon such forfeiture and re-entry, the premium paid by the lessee for such land shall be refunded without any interest, after deducting— (a) the amount, if any, due to the lessor under that lease, and (b) a sum equivalent to 5 per cent of the premium, for administrative expenses. (6) Any person aggrieved by an order under Sub-section (4) may, within 30 days from the date of knowledge thereof, prefer an appeal to the District Judge whose decision shall be final. (6) Any person aggrieved by an order under Sub-section (4) may, within 30 days from the date of knowledge thereof, prefer an appeal to the District Judge whose decision shall be final. (7) The land so re-entered upon after forfeiture of lease may be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2)].” A plain reading of sub-section (2) of Section 18 clears that authority or local authority may dispose of its property/land by way of sale, exchange or lease or by the creation of any easement, right or privilege. In the present case, admittedly, after deposition of full cost of land, originally, the sale-deed (foØ; foys[k) was executed. 23. After execution of sale-deed respondent LDA exchanged the deed (Annexure 7) indicating therein that on account of certain dispute, the earlier sale-deed could not be given effect hence another plot (bearing No. 4/62) is provided to the petitioner. Even if it is exchange-deed, the possession of plot should have been handed over simultaneously keeping in view the fact that originally, the land was transferred through the sale-deed. The word, ‘exchange’, in the Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition) at page 645, has been defined as under : “2. Money or negotiable instruments presented as payment; CURRENCY. See medium of exchange. 3. The interchange or conversion of money. See FOREIGN EXCHANGE. 4. The payment of a debt using a bill of exchange or credit rather than money. 5. An organization that brings together buyers and sellers of securities commodities, and the like to promote uniformity in the customs and usages of merchants to facilitate the speedy adjustment of business disputes, to gather and disseminate valuable commercial and economic information, and to secure to its members the benefits of cooperation in the furtherance of their legitimate pursuits. The best known exchanges are stock, produce, livestock, cotton, and grain exchanges. See RECIPROCAL EXCHANGE. [Cases: Exchanges—— 1—15; Securities Regulation—— 40.10—40.16] 6. The building or hall where members of an exchange meet every business day to buy and sell for themselves, or as brokers for their customers, for present and future delivery. See SECURITIES EXCHANGE (1). —exchange, vb.” In view of the aforesaid definition of word, ‘exchange’, while executing the exchange-deed, the LDA should have delivered the actual possession of plot/land so that the delivery of possession of the plot through exchange-deed could have been done simultaneously. See SECURITIES EXCHANGE (1). —exchange, vb.” In view of the aforesaid definition of word, ‘exchange’, while executing the exchange-deed, the LDA should have delivered the actual possession of plot/land so that the delivery of possession of the plot through exchange-deed could have been done simultaneously. No exchange-deed could have been registered without having actual possession of plot or flat by the LDA. 24. Under the Sales of Goods Act, 1930, sale and agreement to sell, has been defined under Section 4 of the Act as under: “4. Sale and agreement to sell.— (1) A contract of sale of goods is a contract whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a price. There may be a contract of sale between one part-owner and another. (2) A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional. (3) Where under a contract of sale the property in the goods is transferred from the seller to the buyer, the contract is called a sale, but where the transfer of the property in the goods is to take place at a future time or subject to some conditions thereafter to be fulfilled, the contract is called an agreement to sell. (4) An agreement to sell becomes a sale when the time elapses or the conditions are fulfilled subject to which the property in the goods is to be transferred.” Accordingly, in case development authorities execute a sale-deed, then transfer of plot or flat, should simultaneously takes place with delivery of possession. It means, the Government or its instrumentalities have no right to keep the matter pending with regard to actual transfer of the land, plot or flats for some future date. Corrollary to it, the sale-deed may be executed by the development authorities only in case they are in actual possession of land or plot. Any defence set by them for transfer of land or plot or any provisions made by them for transfer of plot or land on future date subject to clearance of Government or its transfer and possession on a future date, shall be in contravention of provisions contained in Section 3 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930. 25. In view of the aforesaid statutory mandate, development authorities or the Government have no right to withhold the transfer of property i.e., the plot or land after execution of sale-deed on a future date. 25. In view of the aforesaid statutory mandate, development authorities or the Government have no right to withhold the transfer of property i.e., the plot or land after execution of sale-deed on a future date. They should execute the sale-deed only in case they are in actual possession of land or plot or flat for transfer of actual possession to allottee. 26. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 also defines the sale and the procedure with regard to sale under Section 54. For convenience, Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is reproduced as under : “54. “Sale” defined—”Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Sale how made.—Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immovable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. Contract for sale.— A contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.” In view of Section 54 also, the sale means the transfer of ownership in exchange for the price for registered document. Legislature to their wisdom, used the word, ‘exchange’, which means simultaneous delivery of possession of the property on certain consideration at the time of execution of sale-deed. The delivery of tangible property, takes place only in case the possession of property is delivered. 27. Kautilya in his “Economics”, opined that every individual whether ruler or ruled, is governed by his or her own Dharma (law). To the extent a society respects Dharma, society protects itself, to the extent society offends it, society undermines itself. Meaning thereby, to the extent we follow the law, employees discharge their obligations in a friendly atmosphere intending to serve the peoples, it amounts to protect the social fabric of the country. To the extent a society respects Dharma, society protects itself, to the extent society offends it, society undermines itself. Meaning thereby, to the extent we follow the law, employees discharge their obligations in a friendly atmosphere intending to serve the peoples, it amounts to protect the social fabric of the country. Needless to say that State or the Government has crucial role to play in maintaining the material well-being of the nation and its people. 28. According to Kautilya, the duties of ruler in internal administration of the country, are three-folds viz., raksha or protection of the State from external aggression, palana or maintenance of law and order within the State, and yoga-kshema or safeguarding the welfare of the people. Thus, maintenance of law and order as well as welfare of the people, should be prime concern of a society governed by rule of law. Treating people as subordinate with the element of rulership, seems to be not part and parcel of democratic institution. The Government servants should put themselves at the place of common citizens and visualize the plight which they may suffer on account of their commission and omissions while discharging obligation. Only then, they may realize the ground reality and take correct step to secure public interest or advance towards the welfare of the peoples. That is why Kautilya says that official who incurs the displeasure of people should either be removed or transferred to a dangerous regions. (Page 304 Economics of Kautilya by L.N. Rangrajan). 29. It appears that still, the Government servants, are suffering with colonial mindset and not treating the people as brethren whom they have to assist and serve. This is established from the present controversy where the allottee has been compelled to pay stamp duty under the Stamp Act with regard to same transaction i.e., sale of plot by the development authority on account of cancellation of earlier one (supra) for no fault on the part of the allottee. It is the drawback of Indian democracy where people suffer because of commission and omission of State authorities or its instrumentalities that too, with least public hue and cry. 30. Lord Steyn in ex p Pierson, rightly opined that the Act, ‘cannot exist in a constitutional vacuum but rather it must ‘fit into a constitutional structure of democratic character’. It is the drawback of Indian democracy where people suffer because of commission and omission of State authorities or its instrumentalities that too, with least public hue and cry. 30. Lord Steyn in ex p Pierson, rightly opined that the Act, ‘cannot exist in a constitutional vacuum but rather it must ‘fit into a constitutional structure of democratic character’. Parliament does not ‘legislate in a vacuum, but rather legislates for a liberal democracy based upon the principles and traditions of the common law. The ‘rule of law’, alongside a properly secured separation of powers, must be reinvested at the heart of a distinctive ‘principle of constitutionalism’. In the words of Lord Steyn to quote : “political theory as to the type of institutional arrangements that are necessary in order to support the democratic ideal. It holds that the exercise of Government power must be controlled in order that it should not be destructive of the very value which it was intended to promote. It requires of the executive more than loyalty to the existing constitution. It is concerned with the merits and quality of constitutional arrangements.” Ian Ward while dealing with English Constitution based on common law, referred Bagehot and Dicey, and quoted, Gedwin while canvassing for sharing of political power as under : “Democracy restores to man a consciousness of his value, teaches him by the removal of authority and oppression to listen only to the dictates of reason, give him confidence to treat all other men as his fellow beings, and induce him to regard them no longer as enemies against whom to be upon his guard, but as brethren whom it becomes him to assist.” 31. There is one other reason, why the allottees in favour of whom a sale-deed has been executed, may not be directed to pay again the stamp duty or additional cost on the ground of price escalation. There is one other reason, why the allottees in favour of whom a sale-deed has been executed, may not be directed to pay again the stamp duty or additional cost on the ground of price escalation. Lord Denning had propounded the theory of “doctrine of inequality of bargaining power”, which benefited thousands of UK citizens who without independent advice or ignorance of law entered into contract on terms which are very unfair or transfers property for a consideration which is grossly inadequate, when his bargaining power is grievously impaired by reason of his own needs or desires, or by his own ignorance or infirmity, coupled with undue influences or pressures brought to bear on him by or for the benefit of the other. 32. In India, where majority of citizens are ignorant to their rights or suffering from poverty, illiteracy, “doctrine of inequality of bargaining power” may be applied and the conditions contained in information brochure of the development authorities or agreement signed thereon, may be tested relying upon the doctrine (supra) to secure public interest. 33. Under these principles, the development authority possessing dominant position and keeping in view the Indian conditions, the allottees may not be directed to pay additional stamp duty again for which a sale-deed was executed in past or to pay additional price or cost of land or plot/flats on the ground of escalation of price in case a sale-deed has already been executed. In earlier judgments (supra), we have not considered this doctrine of law which seems to secure public interest. 34. In India, still 35% peoples are living below poverty line, recurrence of rape, and other heinous crime, molestation of female, accumulation of wealth as well as high handedness and arbitrary exercise of power of the development authorities, causes mental pain and agony to whole of the country because of information communicated by the latest modern technology through media, internet, twitter etc. The recurrence of arbitrary exercise of power and high handedness in violation of judgments of Courts, and statutory mandate, may result with serious consequences in days to come. 35. The plight of the petitioner, who is more than 72 years now, a retired Government employee, waiting to fulfil his dream for a house, and the mental pain and agony which he and his family are suffering, cannot be compensated in terms of money. 35. The plight of the petitioner, who is more than 72 years now, a retired Government employee, waiting to fulfil his dream for a house, and the mental pain and agony which he and his family are suffering, cannot be compensated in terms of money. But while delivering the justice, the only option open to this Court is to compensate the petitioner, award interest, impose costs and provide damages as well as further, to ensure the delivery of possession of plot in question by use of force. The majesty of law must be maintained and the judicial pronouncements must come forward in rescue of petitioner. The writ petition deserves to be allowed with costs. 36. While parting with the case, we would like to take note of the fact that spate of writ petitions are filed in this Court by the allottees against the injustice done to them. It is disturbing feature. Number of judgments delivered by this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court and directions issued thereon, are sidelined by the development authorities repeating the same mistakes or high handedness while dealing with the citizens. A country where the law is not respected and citizens are not treated fairly and friendly by the State or its instrumentalities, country may suffer with irreparable consequences, which may be noticed from the growing unrest in different parts of the country/world. The growing unemployment followed by unfair treatment by State or its instrumentalities, in derogation of pronouncements of Courts, shall leave no option to the peoples of the country except to bypass the judicial forums and stage protest on road or take law into their own hand. 37. Roman civilization has lost its flavour and seen its end because of gross injustice done to citizens on account of partitioned governance. Gandhiji always used to say that truth persists in midst of untruth hence, it is fallacy to presume that wrong doers holding office in State or its instrumentalities, shall be spared by nature. The plight of citizens and sufferings shall one day, awaken our politicians, bureaucrats and a section of judiciary by the high hands of nature and by that time, it shall be too late for them to save and correct themselves. 38. The plight of citizens and sufferings shall one day, awaken our politicians, bureaucrats and a section of judiciary by the high hands of nature and by that time, it shall be too late for them to save and correct themselves. 38. In view of above, petitioner is entitled for refund of additional stamp duty, (supra), cost of litigation as well as interest on the amount deposited initially at the time of execution of sale-deed or later on (supra) being suffered for no fault on his part. For the ends of justice relief is moulded accordingly. 39. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with costs. (A) A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the LDA, respondents to ensure delivery of possession of plot No. 4/62, Sector-O, Mansarovar Residential Scheme, Kanpur Road, Ward Vidyawati Devi Nagar, Lucknow forthwith say, within two weeks from the date of service of a certified copy of the present judgment. (B) A further writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow to provide necessary assistance of task force constituted in pursuance of judgment in the case of Dr. Kailash Singh (supra) to the LDA as well as the petitioner for peaceful enjoyment and construction of house over the plot in question. (C) A writ in the nature of mandamus is further issued commanding the LDA to pay interest at the rate of 8% to the petitioner to the amount deposited by him during the course of execution of first sale-deed till the date of delivery of possession of the plot in question and refund the additional stamp duty (supra). (D) The costs is quantified to Rs. 2,00,000/- out of which Rs. 50,000/- shall be remitted to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. The petitioner shall be entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Let the costs be deposited within two months failing which District Magistrate, Lucknow, shall recover it as arrears of land revenue within next three months and remit to this Court. Registry to take follow up action. It shall be open to the petitioner to file a suit for damages which shall be in addition to costs and interest awarded by this Court. —————