Saleem Khan And 12 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1073 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29894 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Saleem Khan And 12 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Pal Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Avinash Chandra Srivastava,Madan Mohan,Prem Sagar Verma
 

 
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

Impleadment application filed today is taken on record.

In Re: Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No.Nil of 2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The instant application has been filed to implead the applicants, namely, Surendra Pal Singh & Mithlesh Kumari as respondents in the array of the parties of the writ petition.

Counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants were impleaded in revision before courts below, as such, they should be impleaded in the instant writ petition also.

The application is allowed.

Office is directed to allot the number to the impleadment application and necessary incorporation be made in the array of the parties by the office.

Order on Writ Petition

1. Heard Mr. Ram Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Mr. Avinash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.5-Land Management Committee and Mr. Madan Mohan along with Mr. P.S. Verma, counsel for respondent nos.6 & 7.

2. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of without inviting counter affidavit.

3. Brief facts of the case are that father of petitioner nos.1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 and petitioner nos.3, 4, 11, 12 & 13 were granted lease on 16.10.1996. Lease granted on 16.10.1996 was cancelled vide order dated 22.12.2000 by the Additional District Magistrate. Against the order dated 22.12.2000, a revision was filed at the instance of the petitioners and Additional Commissioner vide order dated 13.8.2001, allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 22.12.2000 and remanded the case for fresh decision. State filed a revision before the Board of Revenue against the order dated 13.8.2001 and the Board of Revenue vide order dated 24.1.2005 remanded the matter before the Commissioner for decision afresh. Petitioners and other lease holders were not aware about the order dated 24.1.2005, as such, petitioners could not appear before the Commissioner accordingly, Commissioner again decided the matter ex-parte and maintained the earlier order dated 22.12.2000. Since petitioners were not aware about the order dated 24.1.2005, as such, they could not challenge the said order. When the respondents tried to take possession over the property in dispute Shivraj and others moved an application before the Collector which was rejected on 19.7.2010. Shivraj and others filed revision in the year 2012 challenging the order dated 19.7.2010 which was dismissed vide order dated 29.9.2012. Petitioners challenged the order dated 19.7.2010 which was dismissed on 10.8.2022. Orders dated 24.1.2005 & 22.12.2000 were challenged by Genda Lal and 13 others before this Court in Writ Petition No.56868 of 2005, which has been allowed on 19.8.2021 setting aside the order dated 19.7.2010 and 22.12.2000, a direction was also issued that respondents shall not interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioners in respect to the plot in question which were allotted to them in the year 1996. Another Writ Petition No.1935 of 2013 filed by Shivraj and another has been allowed on 19.8.2021 by which the orders dated 24.1.2005, 19.7.2010 & 29.9.2012 have been set aside. Similarly, Writ-C No.18130 of 2014, Writ-C No.9884 of 2022, Writ-C No.13493 of 2022, Writ-C No.22878 of 2022 and the lease of the lease holders has been approved. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 22.12.2000 (Annexure No.2) passed by Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Firozabad and judgment dated 24.1.2005 passed by Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra (Annexure No.4) and judgment dated 19.7.2010 (Annexure No.7) passed by Collector Firozabad and also judgment dated 10.8.2022 (Annexure No.10) passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Agra Division, Agra.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners and also not to interfere in the peaceful possession of petitioners from property in question.

iii. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the present case.

iv. To award the costs of the petition in favour the petitioners."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the lease was executed in accordance with law after following the due procedure of law, as such, the same cannot be cancelled illegally and arbitrarily. He further submitted that the same controversy has been decided in the Writ Petition Nos.56868 of 2005, 1935 of 2013, 18130 of 2014, 13493 of 2022, & 9884 of 2022 by which the lease executed in favour of the lease holders in the year 1996 has been approved and authorities were restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the lease holders in respect to the plot in question. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are also entitled to the parity of the judgment passed by this Court as controversy is same and identical.

5. On the other hand, counsel for the Gaon Sabha & learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submitted that no interference is required in the matter and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, however, learned counsel for the State-Gaon Sabha could not dispute the fact that controversy which has been decided in the earlier writ petition is same and identical to the instant writ petition.

6. Mr. Madan Mohan and Mr. P.S. Verma, counsel appearing for respondent nos.6 & 7 submitted that after cancellation of the petitioners' lease vide order dated 22.12.2000, the land was allotted to Kailash Chand & Anar Singh who transferred the land in question to respondent nos.6 & 7 through sale deed and respondent nos.6 & 7 were accordingly recorded in the revenue record, as such, counsel for respondent nos.6 & 7 submitted that petitioners' lease cannot be affirmed. They further submitted that respondent nos.6 & 7 were impleaded in the revision before courts below vide order dated 20.7.2022, as such, right of respondent nos.6 & 7 cannot be ignored. They further submitted that petitioners are not entitled to the parity of the judgment of this Court in view of the changed circumstances as mentioned above. They further submitted that writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. In reply counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent nos.6 & 7 are purchaser pendente lite, as such, they have no right and title to intervene in the proceeding which are going on since before they alleged to purchase the plot in dispute. He further submitted that vendor of respondent nos.6 & 7 who were alleged to be allotted lease in respect to the plot in dispute have not taken any steps in the proceedings, as such, respondent nos.6 & 7 have no locus to intervene in the proceedings.

8. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners was granted lease in the year 1996 and they are still in possession for the last more than 25 years. There is also no dispute about the fact that the controversy has been settled by this Court approving the lease granted in favour of the lease holders in year 1996 along with the petitioners.

10. The argument advanced by learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 7 is misconceived and is rejected.

11. The order passed in the leading Writ Petition No.5668 of 2005 is relevant for consideration of controversy which is as follows:

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By means of the instant petition, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 24.01.2005, passed by the Revisional Authority/1st respondent-Additional Commissioner, Agra, arising from order dated 22.12.2000, passed by the 2nd respondent-Additional Collector, Firozabad in proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. It is noted in the impugned order that the Patta granted to the petitioner was irregular, as Rules 173 to 178 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules were not followed; the allotment has been made to two real brothers; and some of the allottees were not eligible; the total area allotted is more than the area permissible under law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as to how the petitioners are ineligible has not been stated in the impugned order. A general order has been passed against the petitioners and others; the petitioners are landless labourer belonging to marginalised section of the society; there is no prohibition under the Act or Rules that real brothers cannot be allotted Patta for agricultural purposes; it is not in dispute that the Sub Divisional Officer has duly approved the resolution of the Land Management Committee allotting the plots to the petitioners.

In the counter affidavit it has been clearly stated that the resolution was dully approved by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 16.10.1996, thus it has not been disputed that the petitioners are allottees. It is further stated that in Form-57Kha there is some misprint of the name. It is further not disputed that pursuant to the allotment, the name of the petitioners were duly entered in the revenue record.

Having regard to the fact that the petitioners belong to the marginalised section of the society; the resolution of the Land Management Committee, after complying the provisions of the Act and Rules, was duly approved by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. It is not a case of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners.

In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed.

The impugned orders dated 24.01.2005 and 22.12.2000 (Annexures-2 & 1 respectively) are set aside. The respondents are restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the plots in question."

12. Petitioners have also challenged the same impugned orders dated 24.1.2005 & 22.12.2000 by which petitioners' lease along with others were cancelled, as such, petitioners are entitled to the same benefit which was granted to the lease holders / petitioners in the earlier writ petition in the similar situation.

13. Since this Court has already settled controversy in Writ Petition Nos.56868 of 2005, 1935 of 2013, 22878 of 2022, 13493 of 2022 & 9884 of 2022, as such, considering the entire facts and circumstances, the impugned orders dated 22.12.2000 passed by Additional Collector, 24.1.2005 passed by Additional Commissioner, 19.7.2010 passed by Collector & 10.8.2022 passed by Additional Commissioner are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside.

14. The writ petition stands allowed. Respondents are restrained from interfering with the right, title & possession of the petitioners in respect to plot in dispute allotted to them in the year 1996.

Order Date :- 11.1.2023

Rameez