Allahabad High Court
Smt. Chaurani vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 27 February, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27725
Court No. - 50
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1039 of 2020
Petitioner :- Smt. Chaurani
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Srivastava Iii,Pratik Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushal Kishore Mani
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Mr. Arvind Srivastava-III, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Avinash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was granted lease on 30.01.1990 in respect to plot no.687 area 0.200 hectares, plot no.1618 area 0.8760 hectares and plot no.1631 area 0.3990 hectares and petitioner's husband was also granted lease on 30.01.1990 in respect to plots as mentioned in paragraph No.5 of the writ petition. On the basis of lease executed in favour of petitioner, the petitioner was initially recorded as bhumidhar with non transferable right and later on recorded as bhumidhar with transferable right. Proceeding for cancellation under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act) was initiated in the year 2010. The Collector, vide order dated 14.11.2011 cancelled the petitioner's lease. The revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14.11.2011 ha been dismissed by Board of Revenue, vide order dated 10.1.2014. Hence this writ petition in the year 2020 for following relief :-
"a) issue a writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of CERTIORARI calling for the record and quashing the impugned order dated 14.11.2011 passed by the District Magistrate cancelling the lease as well as the order dated 10.01.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad dismissing the revision of the revisionist-petitioner.
b) issue a writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the land of Gata no.687/0.02 hectare, 1618/0.876, 1631/0.399 hectare and gata nos.1597/0.121 hectare, 1588/0.020 hectare 1598/area 0.2870 hectares, 1612/0.256 hectare, 1609/0.300 hectare, 1621/0.200 hectare situate at Village Kosma Hinood, Pargana Ghirore, Tehsil Mainpuri, District Mainpuri."
3. This Court vide order dated 9.9.2020 condoned the latches in filing the instant petition and by subsequent order dated 17.3.2023 directed the parties to exchange the affidavit in the matter.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that lease executed in favour of the petitioner as well as her husband in the year 1990 cannot be cancelled on the basis of time barred proceeding initiated in the year 2010. He submitted that on the basis of lease executed in favour of petitioner, the petitioner was recorded as bhumidhar with transferable rights as such, initiation of highly time barred proceedings for cancellation the petitioner's lease cannot be entertained in view of ratio of law laid down by this Court in the case of reported in 2018 (140) R.D 1 Rishi Pal and others Vs. State of U.P. and others. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2011 (114) R.D 484 Dev Sharma and Another Vs. Board of Revenue and others, 2011 (114) R.D 219 Subhag and another vs. Board of Revenue and 2012 (117) R.D page 32 Ramker Chauhan Vs. Commissioner Azamgarh and others. He submitted that revisional Court has not exercised the jurisdiction in accordance with law and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner by passing one line order as such, revisional order passed by the Board of Revenue cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State and learned counsel for Gaon Sabha submitted that lease of the petitioner has been cancelled in proper manner by the Collector recording finding in support of the order. They further submitted that revision filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed in the year 2014 as the writ petition cannot be entertained for setting aside the order passed by the Collector and Board of Revenue. They submitted that writ petition should be dismissed.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner as well as her husband were granted agricultural lease on 30.01.1990. There is also no dispute about the facts that cancellation proceedings was initiated in the year 2010 and the lease of the petitioner has been cancelled by Collector vide order dated 14.11.2011 and revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by Board of Revenue vide order dated 10.01.2014.
8. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter the perusal of Section 198(6) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act will be relevant which is as under :
"Every notice to show' cause mentioned in sub-section (5) may be issued-
(a)in the case of an allotment of land made before November 10, 1980, (hereinafter referred to as the said date), before the expiry of a period of [seven years] [Substituted by U.P. Act No. 24 of 1986 and shall be deemed always to have been substituted.] from the said date; and
(b) in the case of an allotment of land made on or after the said date, before the expiry of a period of [five years from the date of such allotment or lease or up to November 10, 1987, which ever be later]."
9. The perusal of provision demonstrate proceedings of cancellation is to be initiated within the limitation provided under the Act. In the instant matter the cancellation proceedings has been initiated after about 21years which is wholly illegal in view of ratio laid down by this Court in Rishi Pal (Supra). The relevant portion of the judgment passed by this Court in Rishi Pal (Supra) are as under :-.
"7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the orders dated 1.6.2011 and 23.3.2012 cannot be sustained and are to be quashed.
8. The pattas were executed in the year 1992. Under Sub-section (6) of Section 195 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the complaint which was filed in the year 2003-04 was barred by limitation by almost six years.
9. Further, I hold that since the question of limitation goes to the very root of the matter, even though it was not agitated before the courts below, it can definitely be raised here in this Court. Section 3 of the Indian Limitation Act would also be relvant. The same is being reproduced here as under:
"Section 3.- Bar of limitation - (1) Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence.
(2) For the purpose of this Act, -
(a) A suit is instituted, -
(i) in an ordinary case, when the plaint is presented to the proper officer;
(ii) in the case of pauper, when his application for leave to sue as a pauper is made; and
(iii) in the case of a claim against a company which is being wound up by the Court, when the claimant first sends in his claim to the official liquidator;
(b) any claim by way of a set off or a counter-claim, shall be treated as a separate suit and shall be deemed to have been instituted -
(i) in the case of a set off, on the same date as the suit in which the set off is pleaded;
(ii) in the case of a counter-claim, on the date on which the counter-claim is made in Court;
(c) an application by notice of motion in a High Court is made when the application is presented to the proper officer of that Court"
10. The question of limitation had to be therefore looked into by the Court even if he dendant /opposite party had not raised it.
11. Further, after the application which was filed by Hardas was dismissed for non prosecution then he alone could have filed the application for restoration. State was a party whose actions were being adjudicated upon in the complaint which was filed by Hardas. It could not therefore, have supported the restoration application of Hardas.
12. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The orders dated 1.6.2011 and 23.3.2012 are quashed.
13. It is made clear that this relief would be confined to the petitioners who had filed the instant writ petition."
10. Considering the ratio of law laid down by this Court in Rishi Pal (Supra) the impugned judgment dated 14.11.2011 passed by respondent no.3 (Collector) and order dated 10.1.2014 passed by respondent no. 2 (Board of Revenue) are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside.
11. The writ petition stands allowed and the lease executed in favour of petitioner on 30.01.1990 is affirmed. The authorities are directed to record the name of the petitioner on the basis of lease executed in her favour forthwith.
12. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.2.2025
Md Faisal
