Samar Vijay Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing Urban Planning Lko. And

filed in support of the impleadment application of Shri Vidya Sagar Pandey, is also taken on record.

3. Heard Shri Asit Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Saksham Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri Shreyansh Agrawal, learned counsel, who has filed his 'vakalatnama' today on behalf of the opposite party no.3, which is taken on record, Shri Ravindra Pratap Singh, learned counsel, who has put in appearance with an intend to be impleaded in the petition as well as Shri Abhishek Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2 and perused the material available on record.

4. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s): "(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties particularly opposite party no.2 & 3 to complete the election process forthwith, expeditiously, after allowing owners 2 WRIC No. 9279 of 2025 of all the flats including the joint owners to participate in the election of management committee of Parijat Apartment Owner's Association."

5. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that, the election officer has issued a notification, whereby, the election officer, appointed by the respondent no.2 has issued, holding of elections, wherein it was stated that, if the flat is jointly owned by various persons, the name of the first person as an allottee will be entitled to vote.

6. In the light of the said, the contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the said, contention is arbitrary and illegal and also contrary to, the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad and others, reported [2013(9)ADJ 594 (DB)] AHC, in which, the following directions were given by this Court in paragraph no. 65(3) and 66 which are quoted herein-below:- "65(3)- The apartment owner under Section 3 (d) will not only the person or persons owning an apartment or the promoter or his nominee in case of unsold apartments with an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities appurtenant to such apartment in the percentage specified in the Deed of Apartment and includes the lessee of the land on which the building containing such apartment has been constructed, where the lease of such land is for a period of thirty years or more; it includes the spouse and children of the apartment owner and a lawful tenant of the allottee/owner of the allotment, which will also include officer or employee of the company/firm or association, which owns an apartment under a valid allotment letter and its tenant. It will also include a per-son holding valid power of attorney of the allottee/owner of the apartment, where it is owned individually, jointly or in the case of a company/firm/society and occupied without any right of occupation either as family member, tenant, employee or per-son holding power of attorney will not be included in the definition of apartment owner. 66- With the aforesaid interpretation and clarification of the provisions of the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010, the U.P. Apartment Rules, 2011 and the Model Bye Laws, 2011, ironing out the creases for facilitating the resolutions of the issues, which have been raised in these writ petitions, we dispose of all the writ petitions with directions that the parties to the writ petition with the aforesaid clarifications will get their association of 3 WRIC No. 9279 of 2025 apartment owners registered without any further delay, and thereafter raise the questions or disputes, if any, at the first instance in the meeting of the association of the apartment owners, before such disputes are taken to the competent authority or the authority to which powers may be delegated by the Competent Authority in accordance with the directions issued in the judgment. Considering the number of writ petitions pending and the issues, which are likely to arise, we direct that in view of the pro-visions of Rule 3 of the U.P. Apartment Rules, 2011 the declaration will be submitted by the promoter under sub-section (1) of Section 12 in Form-A appended to the Rule with its Annexures 'A' to 'F' and Schedule 'A', by all the promoters in the a State of U.P., who have completed or partly completed constructions of the buildings FAR with more than three allotted or occupied apartments, with the Competent Authority within one month from the date of approval of the plans and where the building has been constructed or is under construction prior to the commencement of the Act and Rules, within 90 days, and that in respect of all the buildings where 33% of the apartments have been occupied after its sale transfer or delivery of possession. The apartment owners, if they have not formed the association so far and the promoters shall form an association and get it registered after adopting the model bye-laws as notified by the State Government on 16.11.2011, within a period of 90 days. In case a meeting is not called within reasonable time, say a month, after the notice is given for convening such meeting and/or the dispute is not resolved in the meeting, the apartment owners or the promoter may make a complaint to the competent authority, who will first make an attempt to decide the matter with the help of mediation or conciliation process and thereafter pass reasoned orders after hearing the parties. Any party aggrieved with the decision may, thereafter, approach the Courts for redressal of their grievance."

7. In the light of the said, it is argued that the manner in which, the election is proposed to be held, violates the rights of joint owners. He further argues that it should be the option of the co-owners, to assign their rights to vote to anyone of the co-owners, which rights stand violated by the schedule issued by the election officer, specifically paragraph no.8 of the said schedule.

8. My attention is drawn towards the communication made by the Lucknow Development Authority, which is the promoter and builder of the property to the Deputy Registrar, who had clarified that in terms of paragraph no.65 of the Judgment of this Court in M/s. Designarch Infrastructure' case any of 4 WRIC No. 9279 of 2025 the parties of joint owners have the right to participate and to vote.

9. The attention of this Court has also drawn towards the letter dated

30.09.2024 issued by the Election Officer nominated by the Deputy Registrar fixing the timeline for holding the elections.

10. In particular my attention is drawn to paragraph no.5 of the said communication, which is quoted herein-below:- "(5). िडप्टी रिजस््िार, फम्सर् सोसाइटीज एवं िचट्स, लखनऊ मण्डल, लखनऊ के आदेश संख्या 321 िदनांक 19.06.2024 के साथ संलग्न अिन्तम सूची में अंिकत ्िि्व ही िनवार्चन में ्ऺितभाग करने हेतु अहर् होंगे। ्ऺथम भवन स्वामी के अनुपिस्थित में ि्षतीय/को-ओनर िनवार्चन में ्ऺितभाग करने हेतु अहर् होगा, परन्तु उसे ्ऺथम स्वामी की अनापि्त/अिधकृ त प्ऴ िलिखत एवं मूल रूप में िनवार्चन अिधकारी के सम्ष ्ऺस्तुत करना अिनवायर् होगा।"

11. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, argues that model bye-laws, framed in terms of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010, the bye-laws itself prescribed for such a stipulation in paragraph no.5 of the said bye-laws, which are quoted as under:- "5. संयु्व अपाटर्मेन्ट स्वामी- जहां दो या अिधक ्िि्वयों ्षारा संयु्व रूप से कोई अपाटर्मेंट ्वय िकया गया हो वहां वे संयु्व रूप से अपाटर्मेन्ट के हकदार होंगे और शेयर ्ऺमाण प्ऴ उनके संयु्व नामों से जारी िकये जाएगे, िकन्तु िजस ्िि्व का नाम शेयर ्ऺमाण में पहले होगा के वल उसे ही मत देने का अिधकार होगा।"

12. In the light of the said, it is argued that the directions issued by the election officer are in furtherance of the bye-laws and nothing wrong can be seen. He further argues that, the present petition after the election has been notified, is not maintainable.

13. Considering the submissions made at the bar, primafacie in the petition, there is no challenge to the model bye-laws by alleging that the same are contrary to the mandate of this Court in the case of 'M/s. Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad and others' particularly in paragraph no. 65(3) of the said case even, the said judgment in paragraph no.65(3) does not in any way, prescribed as to whom of the co-owners would be entitled to vote. The said paragraph, simply clarifies that the 'apartment owner' as prescribed under Section 3(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of 5 WRIC No. 9279 of 2025 Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act will not only the person(s) owning an apartment, but would also include with lessee and his family, the said does not in any way prescribed that all the family members or the joint owners would get entitled to vote.

14. In view of the above, no interference is called for at this stage, the petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

15. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the election after the elections are held by taking whatever grounds are available, as may be available under law. September 25, 2025 Praveen (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

filed in support of the impleadment application of Shri Vidya Sagar Pandey, is also taken on record.

3. Heard Shri Asit Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Saksham Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri Shreyansh Agrawal, learned counsel, who has filed his 'vakalatnama' today on behalf of the opposite party no.3, which is taken on record, Shri Ravindra Pratap Singh, learned counsel, who has put in appearance with an intend to be impleaded in the petition as well as Shri Abhishek Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2 and perused the material available on record.

4. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s): "(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties particularly opposite party no.2 & 3 to complete the election process forthwith, expeditiously, after allowing owners 2 WRIC No. 9279 of 2025 of all the flats including the joint owners to participate in the election of management committee of Parijat Apartment Owner's Association."

5. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that, the election officer has issued a notification, whereby, the election officer, appointed by the respondent no.2 has issued, holding of elections, wherein it was stated that, if the flat is jointly owned by various persons, the name of the first person as an allottee will be entitled to vote.

6. In the light of the said, the contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the said, contention is arbitrary and illegal and also contrary to, the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad and others, reported [2013(9)ADJ 594 (DB)] AHC, in which, the following directions were given by this Court in paragraph no. 65(3) and 66 which are quoted herein-below:- "65(3)- The apartment owner under Section 3 (d) will not only the person or persons owning an apartment or the promoter or his nominee in case of unsold apartments with an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities appurtenant to such apartment in the percentage specified in the Deed of Apartment and includes the lessee of the land on which the building containing such apartment has been constructed, where the lease of such land is for a period of thirty years or more; it includes the spouse and children of the apartment owner and a lawful tenant of the allottee/owner of the allotment, which will also include officer or employee of the company/firm or association, which owns an apartment under a valid allotment letter and its tenant. It will also include a per-son holding valid power of attorney of the allottee/owner of the apartment, where it is owned individually, jointly or in the case of a company/firm/society and occupied without any right of occupation either as family member, tenant, employee or per-son holding power of attorney will not be included in the definition of apartment owner. 66- With the aforesaid interpretation and clarification of the provisions of the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010, the U.P. Apartment Rules, 2011 and the Model Bye Laws, 2011, ironing out the creases for facilitating the resolutions of the issues, which have been raised in these writ petitions, we dispose of all the writ petitions with directions that the parties to the writ petition with the aforesaid clarifications will get their association of 3 WRIC No. 9279 of 2025 apartment owners registered without any further delay, and thereafter raise the questions or disputes, if any, at the first instance in the meeting of the association of the apartment owners, before such disputes are taken to the competent authority or the authority to which powers may be delegated by the Competent Authority in accordance with the directions issued in the judgment. Considering the number of writ petitions pending and the issues, which are likely to arise, we direct that in view of the pro-visions of Rule 3 of the U.P. Apartment Rules, 2011 the declaration will be submitted by the promoter under sub-section (1) of Section 12 in Form-A appended to the Rule with its Annexures 'A' to 'F' and Schedule 'A', by all the promoters in the a State of U.P., who have completed or partly completed constructions of the buildings FAR with more than three allotted or occupied apartments, with the Competent Authority within one month from the date of approval of the plans and where the building has been constructed or is under construction prior to the commencement of the Act and Rules, within 90 days, and that in respect of all the buildings where 33% of the apartments have been occupied after its sale transfer or delivery of possession. The apartment owners, if they have not formed the association so far and the promoters shall form an association and get it registered after adopting the model bye-laws as notified by the State Government on 16.11.2011, within a period of 90 days. In case a meeting is not called within reasonable time, say a month, after the notice is given for convening such meeting and/or the dispute is not resolved in the meeting, the apartment owners or the promoter may make a complaint to the competent authority, who will first make an attempt to decide the matter with the help of mediation or conciliation process and thereafter pass reasoned orders after hearing the parties. Any party aggrieved with the decision may, thereafter, approach the Courts for redressal of their grievance."

7. In the light of the said, it is argued that the manner in which, the election is proposed to be held, violates the rights of joint owners. He further argues that it should be the option of the co-owners, to assign their rights to vote to anyone of the co-owners, which rights stand violated by the schedule issued by the election officer, specifically paragraph no.8 of the said schedule.

8. My attention is drawn towards the communication made by the Lucknow Development Authority, which is the promoter and builder of the property to the Deputy Registrar, who had clarified that in terms of paragraph no.65 of the Judgment of this Court in M/s. Designarch Infrastructure' case any of 4 WRIC No. 9279 of 2025 the parties of joint owners have the right to participate and to vote.

9. The attention of this Court has also drawn towards the letter dated

30.09.2024 issued by the Election Officer nominated by the Deputy Registrar fixing the timeline for holding the elections.

10. In particular my attention is drawn to paragraph no.5 of the said communication, which is quoted herein-below:- "(5). िडप्टी रिजस््िार, फम्सर् सोसाइटीज एवं िचट्स, लखनऊ मण्डल, लखनऊ के आदेश संख्या 321 िदनांक 19.06.2024 के साथ संलग्न अिन्तम सूची में अंिकत ्िि्व ही िनवार्चन में ्ऺितभाग करने हेतु अहर् होंगे। ्ऺथम भवन स्वामी के अनुपिस्थित में ि्षतीय/को-ओनर िनवार्चन में ्ऺितभाग करने हेतु अहर् होगा, परन्तु उसे ्ऺथम स्वामी की अनापि्त/अिधकृ त प्ऴ िलिखत एवं मूल रूप में िनवार्चन अिधकारी के सम्ष ्ऺस्तुत करना अिनवायर् होगा।"

11. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, argues that model bye-laws, framed in terms of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010, the bye-laws itself prescribed for such a stipulation in paragraph no.5 of the said bye-laws, which are quoted as under:- "5. संयु्व अपाटर्मेन्ट स्वामी- जहां दो या अिधक ्िि्वयों ्षारा संयु्व रूप से कोई अपाटर्मेंट ्वय िकया गया हो वहां वे संयु्व रूप से अपाटर्मेन्ट के हकदार होंगे और शेयर ्ऺमाण प्ऴ उनके संयु्व नामों से जारी िकये जाएगे, िकन्तु िजस ्िि्व का नाम शेयर ्ऺमाण में पहले होगा के वल उसे ही मत देने का अिधकार होगा।"

12. In the light of the said, it is argued that the directions issued by the election officer are in furtherance of the bye-laws and nothing wrong can be seen. He further argues that, the present petition after the election has been notified, is not maintainable.

13. Considering the submissions made at the bar, primafacie in the petition, there is no challenge to the model bye-laws by alleging that the same are contrary to the mandate of this Court in the case of 'M/s. Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad and others' particularly in paragraph no. 65(3) of the said case even, the said judgment in paragraph no.65(3) does not in any way, prescribed as to whom of the co-owners would be entitled to vote. The said paragraph, simply clarifies that the 'apartment owner' as prescribed under Section 3(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of 5 WRIC No. 9279 of 2025 Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act will not only the person(s) owning an apartment, but would also include with lessee and his family, the said does not in any way prescribed that all the family members or the joint owners would get entitled to vote.

14. In view of the above, no interference is called for at this stage, the petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

15. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the election after the elections are held by taking whatever grounds are available, as may be available under law. September 25, 2025 Praveen (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench