Visharam Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 3221 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Visharam Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 10 January, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:5472
 
Court No. - 50
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 15683 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Visharam Singh And Others
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ayub Khan,Shive Datta Yadav,Shri Krishna Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Suresh C. Dwivedi
 

 
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Dixit and Mr. Shive Datta Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Hari Narayan Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.5, Land Management Committee.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners were granted agriculture lease by resolution dated 2.12.1975 and 8.12.1975 passed by Land Management Committee. The aforementioned lease were approved in accordance with the provisions of Act and Rules framed thereunder. Petitioners remained in possession over the allotted land and names were also recorded in the revenue record. One Raja Ram filed a case No. 219 of 1976 against Rameshwar Dayal and others for cancellation of lease on the ground that lessee were not eligible for allotment. Additional Collector vide order dated 16.7.1982 canceling the lease of Rameshwar Dayal. Respondent no.4, Land Management Committee filed an application under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act") against Ram Prasad and Banwari sons of Angn, Mithu Lal and Sita Ram. The aforementioned case No. 219 of 1978 was decided by Additional Collector vide order dated 6.6.1983 cancelled the lease granted on the basis of resolution dated 2.2.1975 and 8.2.1975. Petitioners were neither party in case No. 219 of 1978 nor in case No. 174 of 1976. Petitioners along with others have filed revision No. 242 of 1984-85 before the Commissioner against the order dated 6.6.1983 which was heard and dismissed by Additional Commissioner Allahabad Division Allahabad vide order dated 17.2.1990. Order dated 17.2.1990 was challenged by petitioners along with others before Board of Revenue by way of revision No. 33 of 1989-90 which was dismissed vide order dated 26.3.1997. One Bankey Lal who was one of the applicant along with petitioners filed a Writ C No. 16681 of 1997 before this Court against the impugned order dated 6.6.1983, 17.2.1990 and 26.3.1997 which was allowed vide order dated 20.7.2011 quashing the orders dated 6.6.1983, 17.2.1990 and 26.3.1997. Hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioners for the following relief:-

"i. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 6.6.1983 (Annexure No.2) passed by the Upper Collector, Etawah, respondent no.4 in suit no.174 of 1976, order dated 17.2.1990 (Annexure No.3) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, respondent no.3, in Revision No.242 of 1984-85 as well as the impugned order dated 26.3.1997 (Annexure No.4) passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad, respondent no.2, in Revision no.33 of 1989-90.

ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give same relief to the petitioners as has been granted in the writ petition no.16681 of 1997."

3. This Court vide order dated 26.4.2012 entertained the matter and granted interim protection to maintain status quo with regard to possession over the land in question, which runs as follows:

"It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the facts of this case are identical to the case of Writ Petition No. 3156 of 2012 and Writ Petition No. 4560 of 2012.

A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel by submitting that in the earlier writ petitions, the petitioners in the writ petition were party in the revision, and the petitioners, herein, were not parties in the revision, therefore, the facts of this case are not identical, and the petitioners are straight away approaching this Court without availing the remedy of revision.

It is stated in paragraph 8 of the writ petition that the petitioners were party in the revision before the Board of Revenue along with other persons. In view of that, prima facie, it appears that the petitioners were party in the revision. So far as the remaining facts are concerned, that are not disputed and those facts are identical.

In view of that, connect this writ petition with Writ Petition No. 3156 of 2012.

Issue notice.

Notices on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 have been accepted by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel, whereas Shri D.D. Chauhan, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 5. Therefore, notices need not be served to the respondents No. 1 to 5 again.

Issue notice to respondent No. 6 through Registered Post returnable at an early date.

Step be taken within a week.

List this case on the date fixed by the office in the notice. Counter affidavit may be filed by the respondents by the next date fixed.

For the reasons given in the order dated 18.01.2012 in Writ Petition No. 1356 of 2012, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as on date with regard to the nature and possession over the land in dispute."

4. Interim order dated 26.4.2012 was modified on 26.5.2022.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the final order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 16681 of 1997, the instant writ petition is also liable to be allowed and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and learned counsel for Land Management Committee submitted that impugned orders have been passed on the ground that petitioners were not eligible for the allotment, as such, no interference is required in the matter.

7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. There is no dispute about the fact that petitioners were granted agriculture lease in the year 1975 and under the impugned order, the petitioners' lease have been cancelled. There is also no dispute about the fact that similar controversy against the same impugned orders with respect to other lease holder but in respect to same resolution has been decided by this Court holding lease in question cannot be cancelled which were granted to petitioner of Writ C No. 16681 of 1997.

9. In order to adjudicate the controversy, the perusal of the order dated 20.7.2011 passed by this Court in Writ-C No.16681 of 1997 will be relevant, which is as under:

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 3. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no. 4, inspite of notice on the Land Management Committee. The Gaon Sabha has not filed any counter affidavit nor has the State filed any counter affidavit.

The grievance in brief is that the petitioner's lease which was granted in 1975 could not have been cancelled by the respondents on the basis of a cancellation order in respect of the similar leases of the same village.

Learned counsel submits that merely because in the opinion of the respondents there was a similarity in the procedure adopted, the same could not have been a ground for an automatica cancellation without putting the petitioner to notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied the judgment in the case of Hari Ram Vs. Collector, District Saharanpur/Additional Collector & others, 2004 (97) RD 360.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the proceedings for Patta cancellation are governed by the provisions of Sub Section (6) and Sub Section (7) of Section 198 where limitation has been prescribed. Apart from this, the ground taken for cancellation that since the irregularities had been found in similar pattas, therefore, the petitioner's lease should also be cancelled is no ground, inasmuch as, such a ground should be available in the case of the petitioner as well.

The petitioner has taken a clear case that no such similarity existed and that there was no irregularity in the grant of lease to the petitioner. These facts which have been categorically stated in the writ petition led to the passing of an interim order in favour of the petitioner on 14.5.1997 with a direction to the respondents to file a counter affidavit. Till date none of these averments have been controverted and therefore, in view of this, the writ petition is bound to be allowed.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 6.6.1983, 17.2.1990 and 26.3.1997 in so far as it relates to the lease of the petitioner only shall stand quashed."

10. Perusal of Section 198 (5) & 198 (6) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 will be relevant for perusal, which are as under:

"(5) No order for cancellation of an allotment or lease shall be made under sub-section (4), unless a notice to show cause is served on the person in whose favour the allotment or lease was made or on his legal representatives:

Provided that no such notice shall be necessary in proceedings for the cancellation of any allotment or lease where such proceedings were pending before the Collector or any other Court or authority on August 18, 1980.

"6. 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] 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]."

11. In instant matter mandatory provision contained the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for cancellation of lease has been violated as no notice and opportunity of hearing has been given to petitioners before cancellation of their lease.

12. It is also material that the same impugned orders have been set aside by this court in Writ C No. 16681 of 1997 in respect to the same resolution of Land Management Committee as quoted above, as such, the instant writ petition is also liable to be allowed and the impugned orders passed against the petitioners are also liable to be set aside.

13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 6.6.1983 passed by Upper Collector, Etawah, order dated 17.2.1990 passed by Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad and order dated 26.3.1997 passed by the Board of Revenue so far as it relates to petitioners are hereby set aside. The writ petition stands allowed and the lease of the petitioners are hereby affirmed. The necessary consequences shall be followed accordingly.

14. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 10.1.2025

Rameez