Advertisement
The Gulf conflict has disrupted global supply chains, pushed...
REITs have changed the way commercial real estate is owned a...
What does it take to preserve a real estate legacy while bui...
What really powers the cloud? Behind every Google search, A...
A lot of what defines a home isn’t visible at handover. I...
The Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow bench has cleared the way for a proposed hotel project in Ayodhya by setting aside an order that had kept its land under the acquisition process. The court held that government departments should honour commitments made under the state’s investment and tourism policies, particularly when approvals had already been granted before an acquisition notification was issued. The case relates to 2,530 square metres of land in Kudakeshavpur Uparhar village, where Kalpana Nigam had proposed the Ramakulam Regency hotel. The state government has now been given six weeks to reconsider the land’s exemption from acquisition.
The Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow bench has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to reconsider the proposed exemption of land for a hotel project in Ayodhya after finding that the authorities had proceeded with acquisition despite the project receiving approval before the acquisition notification.
A bench comprising Justices Alok Mathur and Amitabh Kumar Rai set aside the Housing Commissioner’s order issued in May 2024, terming it illegal. The court has asked the state government to take a decision within six weeks on whether the land can be exempted from acquisition in accordance with the law.
The dispute concerns 2,530 square metres of land in Kudakeshavpur Uparhar village in Ayodhya. Kalpana Nigam had proposed developing a hotel project named Ramakulam Regency on the property. The Ayodhya Development Authority had approved the hotel map in July 2023, while the Housing Development Council subsequently issued a land acquisition notification in August 2023.
The court noted that the hotel plan had already received approval before the acquisition notification was issued. It also observed that the construction process had begun before the acquisition proceedings were initiated.
The bench further considered the decisions taken during meetings of Invest UP, the state government’s investment promotion and facilitation agency. According to the court, the issue had been examined by the agency and a decision had been taken that hotel projects whose maps had been approved before the issuance of acquisition notifications should be kept outside the acquisition process.
The court observed that government authorities are expected to respect commitments and decisions made under policies intended to attract investment into the state. It also held that investment policies can create a legitimate expectation among investors and that government departments cannot arbitrarily move away from commitments arising from such policies.
The petitioner had argued that the hotel was being developed under Uttar Pradesh’s investment and tourism promotion framework and that the authorities had initially recognised the project as eligible for exemption from acquisition.
The project has also appeared in Uttar Pradesh’s environmental consent records under Ramakulam Regency LLP. State pollution-control records show an application for the hotel, classified as a hotel with more than 20 and fewer than 100 rooms, was approved during the project’s development stage.
The hotel project had also been linked to the wider rise in real estate activity around Ayodhya. Earlier reporting had identified Ramakulam Regency LLP among entities that acquired land in and around the city as development activity increased following the Supreme Court’s Ayodhya verdict. The firm had acquired 2,530 square metres of residential land in Kudha Keshavpur, along with agricultural land in other parts of the area.
The High Court has now quashed the Housing Commissioner’s order and directed the state government to reconsider the matter under Section 49 of the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam. The government will have six weeks to decide whether the disputed land can be kept outside the acquisition process.
Source PTI
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
