High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 52 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 7900 of 2014 Petitioner :- Gaon Sabha Of Village Jewar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Collector And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahesh Narain Singh,Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Agrawal Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1.Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pankaj Agarwal counsel for the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7. 2. Brief facts of the case are that plots in dispute as mentioned in paragraph No. 4 of the writ petition situated in village-Jewar Bangar, Pargana and Tehsil-Jewar, District-Gautam Buddh Nagar, were recorded as Navin Parti in the revenue records. By means of a proposal dated. 22.12.1998 a lease was granted in favour of 263 persons by the chairman of Nagar Panchyat, Jewar. The proposal dated 22.12.1998 was approved by the Sub-Divisional-Magistrate on 07.05.1999, accordingly the lease holders came in possession of the leased land since 1998. Proceeding for cancellation of lease was initiated under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R Act, which was registered as case No. 31 of 2006-07, the proceeding was initiated on a complaint filed by Jagdish Prasad and others on the ground that the provisions of Rules 173 to 176 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R rules were not followed. Upon service of notice, the lease holders filed their objections with respect to the maintainability of the proceeding initiated under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R Act, on the basis of private complaint filed by Jagdish Prasad and others, who has no locus to file complaint. Objection filed by the lease holders was rejected accordingly, appeal No. 31 of 1999-2000 was filed before the Commissioner, who allowed the appeal vide order dated. 04.05.2000 and remanded the matter back to the courts below for fresh decision of the matter after providing proper opportunity of hearing to all concerned. In pursuance of the remand order, matter was heard before the courts below and Additional District Magistrate vide order dated 30th April, 2007 allowed the application for cancellation of lease and allotment order dated 22.11.1998/ approval order dated 07.05.1999 were set aside. Some of the
Legal Reasoning
lease holders challenged the order dated. 30th April, 2007, through revision No. 44 of 2006-07 before Commissioner Meerut, Division Meerut. Additional Commissioner vide order dated 17.06.2008 dismissed the revision of the lease holders hence, revision was filed by lease holders before the Board of Revenue against the order dated 17.06.2008 and the same was allowed vide impugned order dated 07.05.2013 setting aside the orders of the court below hence, this writ petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that revision filed by the lease holders was barred by limitation but, without recording any finding on delay condonation, the impugned orders have been set aside. He further submitted that the order dated 17.06.2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner has already attained finality as such, the second revision challenging the same order dated 30th April, 2007 is barred by principle of res- judicata. He further submitted that there were several irregularities in the execution of alleged lease deed in favour of the lease holders as such, the lease granted in favour of the lease holders cannot be maintained in the eye of law. He further submitted that the Gram Panchayat had no authority to execute the lease as such, the lease executed in favour on the lease holder is illegal.
Legal Reasoning
4. On the other hand, Counsel for the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 submitted that the lease was executed in favour of the lease holders including the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 on 22.12.1998 in accordance with law and the same was approved also vide order dated. 07.05.1999. He further submitted that the lease holders came in possession in the year 1998 of the leased land and still in possession of the same as such, any interference with the right of the lease holders after grant of 24 years will cause irreparable injury to the lease holders. He further submitted that the proceeding for cancellation initiated on the private complaint was wholly illegal as the same has resulted into a cancellation of the valid allotment of the lease belonging to lease holders. He further submitted that the Gram Panchayat has rightly executed the lease in favour of the lease holders as mentioned in the impugned order dated 07.05.2013, against which no interference is required. He further submitted that delay in filing the revision was condoned by Board of Revenue vide order dated 04.04.2013. He further submitted that revision filed by lease holders before Board of Revenue was maintainable as the revision filed by some of the lease holders before commissioner was not maintainable even the same was dismissed by cryptic order. He finally submitted that no interference is required against the impugned order as the present petition has been filed against the impugned order of the Board of Revenue dated. 07.05.2013 and since the date of the
Decision
filing no effective order has been passed in the writ petition rather it was dismissed in default on 26.07.2021 but later on, on the restoration application of the Gaon Sabha the same has been restored to its original number, which is nothing but abuse of process of law. 5. This writ-petition was heard on 20.02.2014 and after hearing the Counsel for the parties, following order was passed:- "Heard Sri Mahesh Narian Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he may be granted one week's time to amend the writ petition. As prayed, one week's time is granted. Put up on 5th March, 2014 in the additional cause list. " Counsel for the petitioner has not complied the order of this Court dated 20.02.2014 till date. 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 the lease holders were granted lease on 22.12.1998 by Nagar Panchyat, Jewar and the same was approved by Sub Divisional Magistrate on 07.05.1999. Against the allotment/approval proceeding under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R Act, has been initiated on the private complaint, which has resulted into cancellation of lease of 263 lease holders. The revision filed against the order of cancellation of lease of lease holder was challenged with delay before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue has allowed the revision and set aside the orders of the courts below resulted into affirming the lease of the lease holders. 8. Since the lease holders, who are 263 in numbers have been granted lease in the year 1998, which was approved also in the year 1999 as such, interference with the lease of lease holders on the private complaint is not legal and proper. It is also material that the 263 lease holders are in possession of the leased land and they have developed the same in the last 24 years as such, eviction from the same will cause irreparable injury to the lease holders. 9. So far as, the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner Gaon Sabha that the Board of Revenue has allowed the revision without condoning the delay is not correct as the Board of Revenue has condoned the delay in filing the revision vide order dated 04.04.2013 which is annexed as Annexure No- 7 to the writ petition. So far as maintainability of revision before Board of Revenue is concerned the lease holders have taken specific ground No. 10 in his ground of revision which is as follows:- " यह कक ममनननय नयमयमलय कक समक न तत पक उपसससत सक और न हन कतई समकय। इस तथय कत ससद करनक कम भमर नहह सम कक वमदगसत पटक नगर पपचमयत मम कनकहत भभकम कक हह यम नहह, परनतत इसकक बमवजभद ममनननय अवर नयमयमलय नक कक वल कशजरम दकखकर आदकश पमररत ककयम हह, जत हर दशम मम खसणणत ककयक जमनक यतगय हह तसम कत छ पटकदमरर दमरम ममनननय अपर कलकटर कक आदकश कदनमपक- 30.08.2007 कवरद कनगरमनन कबनम असधकमरन ककत कक ममनननय आयतक मकरठ जत ममनननय अपर आयतक मकरठ मणणल, मकरठ मणणल, नक अपनक मम कनकहत असधकमर ककत सक बमहर जमकर आदकश कदनमपक-17.06.2008 दमरम कनरसत कर दन। दतनत अवर नयमयमलयर कत असधकमर ककत नहह सम, इस कमरण आदकश हर दत नयमयमलय शभनय हह" मकरठ कक समक यतसजत कक, कक In view of ground No-10 as mentioned above, Board of Revenue has rightly decided the revision, as such any further litigation will cause further harassment to the lease holders, who have been granted lease in the year 1998 and the private complaint filed for cancellation of lease in favour of the lease holders is also not permissible under the law. It is also material that out of 263 lease holders only 3 lease holders have been impleaded in the present writ petition as respondents. 10. There is another aspect of the case that this Court by specific order dated 20.02.2014 granted time to the Counsel for the petitioner to amend the writ petition but till date even after expiry of eight years, amendment application has not been filed, which is non-compliance of the order of this Court. 11. This Court in the case reported in 1985 R.D. 71 Paras Nath singh Vs. The Deputy Director of Consolidation and others has held that if by setting aside the impugned order another illegal order will be restored then the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not interfere with the impugned order although the order impugned is illegal or irregular. Paragraph No.21 of the judgment rendered in Paras Nath (supra) is relevant which is as follows: "21. It is, no doubt, correct to say that any order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and deserves to be quashed. But if as a result of quashing that order another wrong and illegal order would be restored, this Court would refuse to interfere with the impugned order which appears to be quite proper equitable and just order. As mentioned above, the power under Article 226 of the Constitution is devised to advance justice and not to thwart it. To me it appears to be well settled that an order which is illegal cannot be quashed or set aside in writ jurisdiction if quashing of it results in bringing on record another illegal order. 12. The initiation of the cancellation proceeding at the instance of the private complaint is noting but harassment of the lease holders, who are 263 in numbers as well as abuse of process of law also. 13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as ratio of law laid down in Paras Nath Singh (supra), no interference is required against the impugned judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 07.05.2013. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 16.12.2022 Prashant Dwivedi/PS* Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad