Allahabad HC Quashes Varanasi Nagar Nigam's Refusal to Grant NOC for Hotel, Rejects 1884 Pond Entry as Basis
A Division Bench held that a 1913 sale deed by the Municipal Board itself, 74 years of abadi revenue entries, and promissory estoppel barred Nagar Nigam Varanasi from invoking a Fasli 1291 pond record against a hotel project.
The Allahabad High Court has quashed a letter dated 24 January 2026 by which the Additional Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Varanasi, refused to issue a no-objection certificate to M/s Knots India Carpets Private Limited for constructing a hotel on property bearing municipal number D-48/140-141, Misir Pokhra, Varanasi. The sole reason given for the refusal was that Arazi No. 2404, Mauja Rampura had been recorded as a pond in the revenue records for Fasli year 1291, corresponding to 1884 CE. A Division Bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan, with the judgment delivered by Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan, found that the Municipal Board of Benaras had itself sold the land in 1913 acknowledging structures upon it, that revenue records had shown the land as abadi continuously since 1954, and that no pond or water body was found at the site when an IIT-BHU team visited in April 2026. The court directed Nagar Nigam Varanasi to reconsider the NOC application within four weeks of production of the certified copy of the order.
The Property and the Refused NOC
The property in dispute measures 22,571.84 sq ft (2,097.75 sq mt) and is made up of land from erstwhile Arazi Nos. 2402 and 2404, Misir Pokhra, Varanasi. Its recorded history begins with the Municipal Board, Benaras, which executed a registered sale deed dated 19 November 1913 transferring 2 bighas and 7 biswas of land in Mohalla Misir Pokhra to Maharaja Mahindra Chandra Nandy. That deed was preceded by the Commissioner of the Benaras District granting sanction vide letter dated 31 May 1913, confirmed by a Municipal Board resolution dated 27 September 1913. The recital of the 1913 deed described the land as conveyed “with structures thereon” — a fact the court would later treat as an admission by the erstwhile Municipal Board itself.
A further 5 biswas were added to the Maharaja's holding through a registered sale deed dated 12 November 1920. The successors of Maharaja Mahindra Chandra Nandy sold 19,099 sq ft of Arazi No. 2404 to Godrej Dhunjishaw Gandhi and Shavak Dhunjishaw Gandhi by registered sale deed dated 25 September 1957. The Gandhis constructed Mazda Cinema Hall over the entire 22,571.84 sq ft after obtaining a licence and permissions, including one dated 17 October 1962 from the Municipal Board. Mazda Cinema ran for fifty years on the property.
The successors of the Gandhis transferred the land and building to M/s Knots India Carpets Private Limited by registered sale deed dated 8 November 2011. The petitioner entered into a memorandum of understanding dated 9 February 2018 with the State of Uttar Pradesh through the Secretary, Infrastructure and Industrial Development, for construction of a Star Hotel at an estimated investment of Rs 100 crores. When the petitioner applied to Nagar Nigam Varanasi for the NOC required for construction, the Additional Municipal Commissioner refused it by the impugned letter dated 24 January 2026, citing the Fasli 1291 pond entry in the revenue records.
Revenue Records Examined: 74 Years of Abadi Entries
The bench traced the revenue record history in detail. The only entry recording Arazi No. 2404 as a pond appeared in the Khasra of Fasli year 1291 (1884 CE). The respondents admitted that no revenue records were available between Fasli 1291 and Fasli 1356–1359, and the records for that intermediate period were described as dilapidated and were not produced. In the Khasra of Fasli year 1359 (approximately 1952 CE), one sub-plot — Arazi No. 2404/2 — was recorded as a pond, while Arazi No. 2404/1 was recorded as abadi. The bench noted that this single Khasra entry stood alone: from the Khatauni of Fasli year 1361 (1954 CE) onwards, Arazi No. 2404 was recorded as abadi in every subsequent Khatauni, including the current Khatauni for Fasli year 1425.
The bench drew a clear distinction between the two revenue instruments. The Khasra is the record of possession; the Khatauni is the record of rights. Even in Fasli 1359, while a portion appeared as pond in the Khasra, the Khatauni recorded the land as abadi. The bench further noted that the State, as custodian of revenue records, had failed to produce records for the period between Fasli 1291 and Fasli 1358. An adverse inference was drawn against the State for that failure.
The respondents' own instructions placed before the court on 1 April 2026 stated that Arazi No. 2404 “presently is recorded as abadi in the Fasli year 1425.” The bench found that the property in dispute had been recorded as abadi land for approximately 74 years and there was no material to demonstrate it ever bore the character of a pond at any point for which records were actually available.
The IIT-BHU Report and What It Actually Found
After the writ petition was filed and the court passed an order on 1 April 2026 directing the Principal Secretary, Urban Development, and the Municipal Commissioner to file personal affidavits explaining how the land could be held to be pond land, the respondents commissioned a feasibility report from IIT, BHU, Varanasi. That report, dated 15 April 2026, was submitted in pursuance of a letter dated 7 April 2026 issued by the Additional Municipal Commissioner — that is, after the writ petition was filed and the court had acted.
The bench examined the report's own findings carefully. The IIT-BHU team described the site as a T-shaped plot of 0.688 hectares in a densely populated area. On topography, the report found that “the site majorly appears filled with earth, silt and debris” with no water body present. On the feasibility of pond development, the report stated that “the pond re-development work should follow procedures and bye-laws of new pond development” — an acknowledgement, the bench noted, that there was no existing pond to restore, only the possibility of creating a new one. The report also documented that surrounding buildings abutted the site boundary on all sides, with multi-storeyed structures including a G+7 reinforced concrete building on the western flank.
The bench drew five conclusions from the report: the assessment was ordered only after the writ petition was filed; there was no pond or water body on site; the report had been prepared only in respect of the petitioner's property and not the entire 0.688-hectare Arazi No. 2404; the respondents had not explained how they intended to restore a pond across the full arazi in a densely populated locality; and the property was situated in one of the most densely populated parts of Varanasi. The court found this selective targeting of only the petitioner's land arbitrary and discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Distinguishing Hinch Lal Tiwari and Related Precedents
The respondents' primary legal argument rested on the Supreme Court's judgment in Hinch Lal Tiwari v. State of UP, (2001) 6 SCC 496, and Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396. The bench examined both carefully before holding them inapplicable.
In Hinch Lal Tiwari, the Supreme Court had found that a patta was granted over land that was recorded as a pond in the Khataunis for Fasli years 1387 to 1398 (1980–1992) — a continuous, proximate, and contemporaneous record of pond character. No equivalent record existed in the present case. In Jagpal Singh, the occupants were trespassers and unauthorised encroachers who had filled a village pond and constructed over it; they held no title. In the present case, the petitioner's predecessor held a registered sale deed from the Municipal Board itself, executed in 1913, and the property had been recorded in the Corporation's own registers for payment of house tax and water tax since 1927.
The bench also considered Jitendra Singh v. Ministry of Environment and Others, (2020) 20 SCC 581, where a private entity had forcibly taken over a common pond using heavy machinery, and the Industrial Development Authority had been acquiring and leasing ponds to private parties. None of those circumstances applied here.
The court found that the law in State of Rajasthan v. Ultra Tech Cement Limited, (2022) 19 SCC 102, was more apposite. In that case the Supreme Court had held that where detailed spot inspections established that no Johad existed on the subject land, the mere description of land as a pond in revenue records could not prevent correction of those entries or processing of an application for the land's use. The bench applied the same logic: where the site inspection, the IIT-BHU report, and the continuous revenue record all showed that no pond existed, a single Fasli 1291 entry from 1884 could not override a century of contrary evidence.
The bench also relied on a coordinate bench judgment in Shiv Badan Pandey and Others v. State of UP and Others, Writ Petition No. 2636 (MB) of 2006, which had held that even where revenue entries showed pond character, if the pond had lost its utility and land was being used for development, this did not give any party the right to demolish all developments and restore the pond that was no longer in existence.
Estoppel, Registered Sale Deed, and Applicability of the Revenue Code
The bench held that the Nagar Nigam was estopped from taking a position contradicting the sale deed of 1913 after a lapse of 113 years. The 1913 deed was executed by the erstwhile Municipal Board, Benaras, the predecessor of Nagar Nigam Varanasi, and its recital expressly transferred land “with structures thereon.” The respondent Corporation did not dispute the validity or genuineness of that deed at any point. Applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel as articulated in Manulsons Hotels Pvt Ltd v. State of Kerala and Others, Civil Appeal No. 2480 of 2008 decided on 11 May 2016, the bench held that an unconscionable departure from an assumption underlying a 113-year-old sale deed, relied upon through a chain of registered transfers, could not be permitted.
Separately, the bench addressed the proceedings initiated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Varanasi, under Sections 59/61 of the UP Tenancy Act, 1939, pursuant to a show cause notice dated 10 April 2026 issued to the petitioner. The bench found that the notices wrongly cited Sections 59/61 of the UP Tenancy Act, 1939, which pertain to suits by tenants for declaration of tenancy rights and suits as to class of tenancy — provisions entirely unrelated to pond restoration or the present dispute. The respondents' own affidavit later clarified they intended to invoke Sections 59/61 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 (not the 1939 Act), though the year was wrongly mentioned.
On the applicability of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the bench noted that Section 1(2) of that Act excludes areas which, on 7 July 1949, were included within a municipality or notified area under the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916. The property had been within the Municipal Board, Benaras, well before 1949. On Chapter VIII of the UP Revenue Code, 2006, which deals with the management of ponds and village tanks through Gram Panchayats, the bench noted that its applicability is tied to the applicability of enactments listed at serial nos. 19 and 25 of the First Schedule of the Code, which in turn trace to the ZA & LR Act, 1950 and the UP Urban Areas ZA & LR Act, 1950. Since neither applied to the property in dispute, proceedings under Sections 59/61 of the Code, 2006 were of questionable jurisdiction. However, since no formal relief had been claimed in the writ petition in respect of those proceedings, the bench left that question open for the petitioner to raise before the appropriate forum.
Order
The Division Bench allowed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9556 of 2026. The letter dated 24 January 2026 issued by the Additional Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Varanasi, refusing the no-objection certificate, was quashed. A writ of mandamus was issued directing respondent no. 2 — the Municipal Corporation, Varanasi — to reconsider the petitioner's application for a no-objection certificate for construction of the hotel on property D-48/140-141, Misir Pokhra, Varanasi, in light of the findings returned in the judgment. The exercise of reconsideration was directed to be completed expeditiously and preferably within four weeks of the production of a certified copy of the order. No order as to costs was made. The judgment was reserved on 27 May 2026 and delivered on 2 July 2026.