Allahabad High Court
Nanak Chand And Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 19 July, 2011
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?AFR
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39502 of 2011
Petitioner :- Nanak Chand And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Ram Babu Sharma,R. S. Maurya
Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C.,Anuj Kumar
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel who has invited the attention of the Court to the government order dated 30.12.1985.
The contention is that the leases granted to the contesting respondents deserve to be cancelled for which the petitioners had approached the Collector of the district for such cancellation under the provisions of sub section 4 of Section 198 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The prayer is for a direction to the Collector to decide the said application.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the government order produced by the learned standing counsel it is evident that the leases which have been allegedly granted to the contesting respondents are for social forestry and plantation of trees. Such plantation is permissible under the government order dated 30.12.1985. There is no specific provision for grant of such leases under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Section 126 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.Act makes a provision empowering the State Government to issue necessary directions to be carried out by the subordinate authorities. The government order dated 30.12.1985 has been issued in exercise of such powers. The power to manage the land vested in the Gaon Sabha is provided for under Section 122-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. No amendment has been pointed out as contemplated under Clause 21 of the said government order. In such a situation the leases granted to the contesting respondents cannot be treated to be a statutory lease under the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.Act as in the case of Abadi sites or for agricultural purposes. At the best it is a privilege under the government order dated 30.12.1985. If the lease is not under the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.Act as referred to herein above, then in such a situation the cancellation thereof cannot be under taken under sub section 4 of Section 198 of the Act.
Learned standing counsel is therefore correct to that extent. So far as any dispute regarding such lease is concerned it can only be gone into under the provisions of the government order itself.
I have perused the said government order and it defines the Sub Divisional Magistrate/Sub Divisional Officer of the area concerned to be the competent authority to decide such matters. If a lease granted under the said government order is cancelled then the aggrieved person has a right of appeal before the Collector.
Accordingly the applications or complaints alleged to have been moved for cancellation of lease before the Collector are therefore not maintainable.
Sri Maruya learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the application had been given to the Sub Divisional Officer also but no action was taken on the ground that it has already been approved by him.
The petitioner can still move an application before the Sub Divisional Officer concerned who may after going through the government order dated 30.12.1985 shall proceed to consider the same in accordance with the provisions of the said government order.
The writ petition is consigned to records with the aforesaid observations.
Order Date :- 19.7.2011
mna
