Unauthorised occupation of nazul land bars transfer rights and prevents regularisation of construction obtained by suppression.

Expiry of a lease over nazul land left the occupants without subsisting right, title, or authority; mere continued possession or payment could not create holding over without the lessor's assent, so the occupation and any derivative transfer rights were unauthorised. A building plan obtained without full disclosure of land title could not be retained, because fraud and suppression vitiate administrative action and the urban planning statute did not permit regularisation of illegal construction through compounding charges. The recall of the sanctioned map was therefore upheld, and the construction remained incapable of regularisation on the basis of subsequent payment or acquiescence.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioners had any subsisting right, title or authority over the nazul land after expiry of the lease so as to justify occupation and transfer of the property; (ii) whether the sanction of the building plan could validly be retained or the construction regularised when the land-related disclosures were incomplete and the petitioners had no lawful authority to develop the property.

Issue (i): whether the petitioners had any subsisting right, title or authority over the nazul land after expiry of the lease so as to justify occupation and transfer of the property.

Analysis: The lease had expired by efflux of time and no fresh lease was executed in accordance with law. Mere continuation in possession or payment of amounts could not create a renewed tenancy or attract holding over in the absence of the lessor's assent. The statutory scheme governing public premises treated occupation after expiry of authority as unauthorised occupation, and nazul land was included within public premises. On that basis, the petitioners and their predecessors had no enforceable right to continue in possession or to create any derivative interest in favour of transferees.

Conclusion: The petitioners were unauthorised occupants and had no lawful authority to deal with the land or confer any transferable right in it.

Issue (ii): whether the sanction of the building plan could validly be retained or the construction regularised when the land-related disclosures were incomplete and the petitioners had no lawful authority to develop the property.

Analysis: A person without title or lawful possession cannot secure a valid benefit from a sanctioned plan obtained on incomplete disclosure or misrepresentation. The Court treated the recall of the sanction as justified because fraud vitiates all proceedings and an authority is competent to undo an order obtained by fraud or suppression of material facts. The urban planning statute emphasised conformity with the master plan and zonal plan, and its compounding provisions dealt with offences rather than regularising illegal or unauthorised construction. The Court also held that the statute did not permit profiteering by allowing illegal construction to survive merely on payment of compounding charges.

Conclusion: The recall of the sanctioned map was valid, and the construction could not be regularised on the basis of compounding or subsequent acts.

Final Conclusion: The petitioners had no enforceable right over the land, their transactions and constructions were illegal, and the impugned revocation of sanction was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: After expiry of a lease over public premises or nazul land, occupation becomes unauthorised in the absence of a fresh lawful grant, and a plan or construction founded on fraud, suppression, or lack of title can be recalled and cannot be regularised merely through compounding or administrative acquiescence.

---