Allahabad High Court

1. Heard Sri Somesh Khare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Anjali Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for the Greater Noida, namely respondent No.- 5.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the notice dated 6th November, 2025 issued to him chiefly on the ground that once the land has been resumed by the State Government in purported exercise of power under Section 117 (6) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 (herein after referred to as 'Act, 1950') and notification to that effect has come to be issued under sub-section (6) of Section 117 of the Act, 1950, a further declaration finalizing the resumption was necessary which did not take effect and hence the resumption proceeding remained incomplete. According to Mr. Khare, since proviso to sub section further provides for further declaration of resumption land non compliance thereof may not result in a resumption process getting completed. In another words, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the notification has taken place, vesting stands considered only after the declaration issued under the proviso and hence notice impugned in this petition is per se bad.

3. Per contra, it is argued by Ms. Anjali Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the respondent No.- 5 that notification of resumption of land had taken place in the year 2015 itself under the relevant provisions of erstwhile U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. She further argued that the said notification came to be challenged by petitioner vide writ petition being Writ - C No.- 35538 of 2024 but no interim order was passed therein and only response has been invited. It is thus submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that notice dated 6th November, 2025 was a result of vesting of the land in the State Government by virtue of resumption notified by the State Government qua the land in question.

4. Meeting the submissions on the legal aspect raised by Mr. Khare, 2 WRIC No. 41023 of 2025 learned counsel for the petitioner, Miss Upadhyaya submitted before the Court that proviso only qualifies the main clause of sub-section (6) of Section 117 of the Act, 1950 as an enabling provision to meet an eventuality where the State Government decides to re-invest the land in the Gaon Sabha or in the local authority from which the land had been resumed. She argues that proviso does not in any manner provides or makes any provision to qualify a vesting that has already taken place under Section 117(6) of the Act, 1950. However, she submits that if petitioner wants to appear before the authority to reply to the show cause notice dated 6th November, 2025, he may avail such remedy.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, insofar as the legal aspect is concerned regarding interpretation to be made of the proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 117 of the Act, 1950, in order to appreciate this legal aspect of the matter, we reproduce Section 117(6) of the Act, 1950 and also proviso hereunder: "117.(6)- The State Government may at any time, [by general or special order to be published in the manner prescribed] [Substituted by U.P. Act No. 35 of 1976.], amend or cancel any [declaration, notification or order] [Substituted by U.P. Act No. 30 of 1975.] made in respect of any of the things aforesaid, whether generally or in the case of any Gaon Sabha or other local authority and resume such thing and whenever the State Government so resumes any such things, the Gaon Sabha or other local authority, as the case may be, shall be entitled to receive and be paid compensation on account only of the development, if any, effected by it in or over that things : Provided that the State Government may after such resumption make a fresh declaration under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) vesting the thing resumed in the same or any other local authority (including a Gaon Sabha), and the provisions of sub-sections (3), (4) and (5), as the case may be, shall mutatis mutandis, apply to such declaration."

6. Upon a careful reading of provisions as contained under Section 117 (6) of Act, 1950, it is clearly found that the legislature empowered State Government to resume the land either from the Goan Sabha or local authority and the resumption is by way of notification that they are resuming the land and all such land would automatically stand vested in the State Government, and the Gaon Sabha and local authority would only be entitled to compensation.

7. A further reading of the proviso discloses that the legislature further enabled to State Government to re-vest the land in such local body or gaon sabha from which it had been resumed. It is admitted rule of interpretation that the provisions have to be interpreted in the plain and simple language in which they are couched. It is also a golden rule of interpretation that proviso to main section can never override the spirit of the main section. Applying this rule of interpretation we find that plain and simple language of the proviso only provides for the State 3 WRIC No. 41023 of 2025 Government to reinvest the land in the local authority or the gaon sabha as the case may be.

8. Accordingly, we are not impressed by the legal argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and hence according to us, vesting of the land in question in the State Government has stood completed with the notification thereof made in the year 2015 itself.

9. We are also informed here that a writ petition has been filed challenging the notification but there is no stay order operating therein, therefore, the notification would not in any manner get affected and the notice, therefore, in respect thereof to vacate the land and remove construction standing upon the said land was naturally issued as a consequence to the notification.

10. However, it is always open for a party who has been served with a notice to submit reply to the same and here we agree with the submission advanced by Ms. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 and in the event petitioner if wants to submit his reply to the notice, he may have such liberty.

11. Accordingly, while we decline to interfere with the notice dated 6th November, 2025, we still provide that in the event petitioner moves a reply to the notice dated 6th November, 2025 before the concerned competent authority namely respondent No.- 5 within two weeks from today, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law. November 21, 2025 Atmesh (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)

1. Heard Sri Somesh Khare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Anjali Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for the Greater Noida, namely respondent No.- 5.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the notice dated 6th November, 2025 issued to him chiefly on the ground that once the land has been resumed by the State Government in purported exercise of power under Section 117 (6) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 (herein after referred to as 'Act, 1950') and notification to that effect has come to be issued under sub-section (6) of Section 117 of the Act, 1950, a further declaration finalizing the resumption was necessary which did not take effect and hence the resumption proceeding remained incomplete. According to Mr. Khare, since proviso to sub section further provides for further declaration of resumption land non compliance thereof may not result in a resumption process getting completed. In another words, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the notification has taken place, vesting stands considered only after the declaration issued under the proviso and hence notice impugned in this petition is per se bad.

3. Per contra, it is argued by Ms. Anjali Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the respondent No.- 5 that notification of resumption of land had taken place in the year 2015 itself under the relevant provisions of erstwhile U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. She further argued that the said notification came to be challenged by petitioner vide writ petition being Writ - C No.- 35538 of 2024 but no interim order was passed therein and only response has been invited. It is thus submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that notice dated 6th November, 2025 was a result of vesting of the land in the State Government by virtue of resumption notified by the State Government qua the land in question.

4. Meeting the submissions on the legal aspect raised by Mr. Khare, 2 WRIC No. 41023 of 2025 learned counsel for the petitioner, Miss Upadhyaya submitted before the Court that proviso only qualifies the main clause of sub-section (6) of Section 117 of the Act, 1950 as an enabling provision to meet an eventuality where the State Government decides to re-invest the land in the Gaon Sabha or in the local authority from which the land had been resumed. She argues that proviso does not in any manner provides or makes any provision to qualify a vesting that has already taken place under Section 117(6) of the Act, 1950. However, she submits that if petitioner wants to appear before the authority to reply to the show cause notice dated 6th November, 2025, he may avail such remedy.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, insofar as the legal aspect is concerned regarding interpretation to be made of the proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 117 of the Act, 1950, in order to appreciate this legal aspect of the matter, we reproduce Section 117(6) of the Act, 1950 and also proviso hereunder: "117.(6)- The State Government may at any time, [by general or special order to be published in the manner prescribed] [Substituted by U.P. Act No. 35 of 1976.], amend or cancel any [declaration, notification or order] [Substituted by U.P. Act No. 30 of 1975.] made in respect of any of the things aforesaid, whether generally or in the case of any Gaon Sabha or other local authority and resume such thing and whenever the State Government so resumes any such things, the Gaon Sabha or other local authority, as the case may be, shall be entitled to receive and be paid compensation on account only of the development, if any, effected by it in or over that things : Provided that the State Government may after such resumption make a fresh declaration under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) vesting the thing resumed in the same or any other local authority (including a Gaon Sabha), and the provisions of sub-sections (3), (4) and (5), as the case may be, shall mutatis mutandis, apply to such declaration."

6. Upon a careful reading of provisions as contained under Section 117 (6) of Act, 1950, it is clearly found that the legislature empowered State Government to resume the land either from the Goan Sabha or local authority and the resumption is by way of notification that they are resuming the land and all such land would automatically stand vested in the State Government, and the Gaon Sabha and local authority would only be entitled to compensation.

7. A further reading of the proviso discloses that the legislature further enabled to State Government to re-vest the land in such local body or gaon sabha from which it had been resumed. It is admitted rule of interpretation that the provisions have to be interpreted in the plain and simple language in which they are couched. It is also a golden rule of interpretation that proviso to main section can never override the spirit of the main section. Applying this rule of interpretation we find that plain and simple language of the proviso only provides for the State 3 WRIC No. 41023 of 2025 Government to reinvest the land in the local authority or the gaon sabha as the case may be.

8. Accordingly, we are not impressed by the legal argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and hence according to us, vesting of the land in question in the State Government has stood completed with the notification thereof made in the year 2015 itself.

9. We are also informed here that a writ petition has been filed challenging the notification but there is no stay order operating therein, therefore, the notification would not in any manner get affected and the notice, therefore, in respect thereof to vacate the land and remove construction standing upon the said land was naturally issued as a consequence to the notification.

10. However, it is always open for a party who has been served with a notice to submit reply to the same and here we agree with the submission advanced by Ms. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 and in the event petitioner if wants to submit his reply to the notice, he may have such liberty.

11. Accordingly, while we decline to interfere with the notice dated 6th November, 2025, we still provide that in the event petitioner moves a reply to the notice dated 6th November, 2025 before the concerned competent authority namely respondent No.- 5 within two weeks from today, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law. November 21, 2025 Atmesh (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)