High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 51 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21936 of 2023 Petitioner :- Mewa Lal Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava,Parbind Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Awadhesh Kumar Sharma,Bhual Vishwakarma,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, counsel for the petitioner, Sri Awadhesh Kumar Sharma, counsel for respondent nos. 4 & 5, Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl.C.S.C. for the state-respondents and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha. 2. Brief facts of the case are that gaon sabha has made proposal for allotment of plantation lease in favour of respondent nos. 4 & 5 on 25.4.1999 in respect to plot no.487, area 0.085 hectare, situated in village Saidanpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Jaunpur. The aforementioned lease which was approved on 18.10.1999 by Sub Divisional Officer.The aforementioned plot no.487, area 0.085 hectare was recorded as banjar in the revenue records at the relevant point of time. Although petitioner is disputing the entry of the plot in dispute as banjar, rather the same was recorded according to petitioner as abadi land in the records and petitioner is in possession of the same sing long. Proceeding under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act for cancellation of lease, has been initiated by the petitioner on 1.1.2009 in respect to the plantation lease granted in favour of respondent nos. 4 & 5 on 25.4.1999. The aforesaid proceeding for cancellation was registered as Case No.203/2008-09 (Computerized Case No.D20091436006) wherein respondent nos. 4 & 5 filed their objection on 23.12.2010, denying the possession of the petitioner over the land in question. Respondent no.3/Collector/District Magistrate vide order dated 16.1.2023 rejected the petitioner's application for cancellation of lease as barred by limitation as well as on the ground of maintainability. Petitioner filed revision against the order dated 16.1.2023 before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, which was registered as Revision No.302/2023 (Computerized Case No.C202314000000302), under Section 333 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. Respondent no.2/Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Varanasi Division, Varanasi vide order dated 25.3.2023, dismissed the petitioner's revision at the admission stage, hence, this writ petition. Petitioner also filed a civil suit being Suit No.1/2009, impleading the gram panchayat and others for permanent injunction in respect to the plot in dispute which is still pending before the civil court. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is in possession of the plot in dispute. It is further submitted that the plantation lease has been granted in arbitrary manner by the respondents on 25.4.1999 in favour of the private respondents. It is also submitted that when petitioner came to know about the execution of plantation lease in favour of the private respondents, proceeding for cancellation of the lease has been initiated in the year 2009. He also submitted that under the impugned order, proceeding for cancellation filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, without considering the petitioner's case. He further submitted that suit for injunction filed by the petitioner before the civil court, is pending for adjudication. He also submitted that the impugned order be set aside and petitioner's application for cancellation of lease be examined afresh in accordance with law. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in Writ B No.51591/2013 (Ram Pal and 19 Others vs. State of U.P. & 11 Others) dated 12.5.2014 in order to demonstrate that limitation for cancellation of lease shall start from the date of knowledge. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the respective respondents submitted that proceeding for cancellation has been initiated after about 10 years, as such, the same was rightly dismissed under the impugned order. They further submitted that the land in dispute was recorded as banjar in the revenue records, as such, plantation lease was granted in accordance with law and the lease was approved by the competent authority. They also submitted that unless the entry of the land is changed, petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the respective parties and perused the records.
Legal Reasoning
6. There is no dispute about the fact that land in dispute was recorded as banjar at the relevant point of time. There is also no dispute about the fact that land in dispute was allotted to private respondents for plantation in the year 1999 and an application for cancellation has been filed by the petitioner after about 10 years i.e. 1.1.2009. 7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant writ petition, the finding recorded by respondent no.3 while dismissing the application for cancellation, will be relevant for perusal which is as follows:- "ससुनववाई कके समय पसुकवार करवाई गई। ववपकቌኍ ककी ओर सके ककोई उपससቝኌत नहቌኍ हहै। ववादቌኍ कके ववदवान अधधिवकवा तቝኌवा धजिलवा शवासककीय अधधिवकवा रवाजिसव उपससቝኌत आयके उन्हके ससुनवा गयवा। ममनके पकኘ कके ववदवान अधधिवकवा कके तकरर कको ससुनवा तቝኌवा पतवावलቌኍ पर उपलब्धि अवभिलकेखቌኍय एवर ममौधखक सवाቌኚयኘ एवर ववपकቌኍ दवारवा ्ቚसतसुत आपधቈኌ कवा भिलቌኍ भिवारवत अवलकोकन/पररशቌኍलन वकयवा। धजिससके सप्ቖ हकोतवा हहै वक ववादቌኍ मकेववालवाल दवारवा ववाद ववपकቌኍगण सम्भिभूनवाቝኌ व अशकोक कसु मवार पसुतगण खसुनखसुन कके पक ममौजिवा सहैदनपसुर परगनवा हवकेलቌኍ तहसቌኍल सदर ससቝኌत आरवाजिቌኍ नर० 487/0.085 हके० कवा ववृकवारकोपण आवरटन सवቌኍकवृ वत वदनवारक 18.10.99 कके वनरसतቌኍकरण हकेतसु वदनवारक 1.1.2009 कको अन्तगरत धिवारवा 198(4) जि०वव०अधधि० ्ቚसतसुत वकयवा गयवा हहै , धजिसमम ववादቌኍ दवारवा यह कቝኌन वकयवा गयवा हहै वक आरवाजिቌኍ वनजिवाई हम सवायल व सवायल कके पभूरके पररववार कवा कब्जिवा दखल मसु्ቌत सके चलवा आ रहवा हहै और आबवादቌኍ सकेहन व बवाग कके रूप मम हम व हमवारवा पभूरवा पररववार कवावबजि दखቌኍल रहकर आजि तक उसकवा उपयकोग व उपभिकोग करतवा चलवा आ रहवा हहै। इसधलए आरवाजिቌኍ वनजिवाई वबल्कसु ल खवालቌኍ जिमቌኍन नहቌኍ हहै। आरवाजिቌኍ वनजिवाई पर गवामसभिवा कवा कब्जिवा दखल न कभिቌኍ ቝኌवा और न आजि हቌኍ हहै। गवामसभिवा ककी आरवाजिቌኍ वनजिवाई पर ककोई हक पहलके सके नहቌኍ ቝኌवा ममौजिवा ्ቚधिवान हम ववादቌኍ सके ररधजिश रखतके ቝኌके, धजिससके ववादቌኍ कवा व्यवकगत नसुकसवान करनके कके गरजि सके आरवाजिቌኍ वनजिवाई कके पटके कवा ्ቚसतवाव ्ቚवतववादቌኍ नर० 1 व 2 कके पक मम फजिቌኍ तमौर पर वदनवारक 25.4.99 कको कर वदयवा जिको वदनवारक 18.10.99 कको उप धजिलवाधधिकवारቌኍ सदर जिमौनपसुर कके यहवार सके सवቌኍकवृ त तथ्यኘ कको वछिपवाकर करवा धलयवा गयवा , जिबवक ववपकቌኍगण कवा कቝኌन हहै वक आरवाजिቌኍ वनजिवाई पर सदवा सके हቌኍ गवारव सभिवा कवा कब्जिवा रहवा और गवारव सभिवा सम्पधቈኌ हहै। आरवाजिቌኍ वनजिवाई सदवा सके हቌኍ गवारवसभिवा कवा हक रहवा और उसकके मवाधलक गवारवसभिवा रहቌኍ गवारवसभिवा कቈኌई न हቌኍ ववादቌኍ सके ककोई ररधजिश आजि तक रहቌኍ न आजि सके पहलके कभिቌኍ रहቌኍ। गवारवसभिवा नके जिको भिቌኍ कवायर वकयवा हहै वह यቝኌकोवचत समझ कर सरकवार ककी यकोजिनवा कवा लवाभि गरቌኍबኘ तक परहहचवानके हकेतसु बरजिर भिभूवम कको हरवा भिरवा करनके कके धलए भिभूवमहቌኍन मजिदभूर गरቌኍब कके हक मम पटवा वदयवा हहै सरकवारቌኍ मरशवा कके अनसुरूप उसमम वकसቌኍ ्ቚकवार ककी ककोई गलतቌኍ नहቌኍ ककी गई हहै। गवारवसभिवा नके पटवा कके बवावत ववधधि सम्मत आवश्यक कवायरववाहቌኍ यቝኌकोवचत रूप सके पररपवालन करतके हहए हर ववधधिक बवातኘ कको ध्यवान मम रखकर ्ቚसतवाव ककी सवारቌኍ वहैधिवावनक कवायरववाहቌኍ कको पभूणर करनके कके बवाद पटवा वकयवा हहै। उसमम वकसቌኍ ्ቚकवार ककी ककोई तसुवट नहቌኍ वकयवा हहै। इस ्ቚकवार ्ቚश्नगत ्ቚकरण मम ववादቌኍ दवारवा वकयवा गयवा कቝኌन इस आधिवार पर सवቌኍकवार यकोग्य नहቌኍ हहै, क्यኘवक आरवाजिቌኍ वनजिवाई अवभिलकेखኘ मम बरजिर खवातके ककी गवारव सभिवा सम्पधቈኌ हहै और उस पर गवारवसभिवा कवा हቌኍ कब्जिवा मवानवा जिवायकेगवा जिको अवभिलकेखኘ सके सप्ቖ हहै , ववादቌኍ कवा वकस अधधिकवार सके उक भिभूवम पर कब्जिवा हहै , इसकके सम्बन्धि मम न तको उसकके दवारवा ककोई सप्ቖ कቝኌन वकयवा गयवा हहै और न हቌኍ इस ्ቚकवार कवा ककोई अवभिलकेखቌኍय सवाቌኚय हቌኍ ्ቚसतसुत वकयवा गयवा हहै। आरवाजिቌኍ नर० 487/0.085 हके० बरजिर खवातके ककी भिभूवम रहቌኍ धजिसके गवारव सभिवा नके हररयवालቌኍ यकोजिनवा कके अन्तगरत ववपकቌኍगण शम्भिभूनवाቝኌ व अशकोक कसु मवार पसुत खसुनखसुन कके पक मम ववृकवारकोपण आवरटन हकेतसु ्ቚसतवाववत वकयवा धजिसकको वनयमवानसुसवार पवातके हहए उप धलजिवाधधिकवारቌኍ सदर दवारवा वदनवारक 18.10.99 कको सवቌኍकवृ वत ्ቚदवान वकयवा गयवा हहै धजिसमम ककोई ववधधिक तसुवट पररलवकत नहቌኍ हकोतቌኍ हहै, क्यኘवक आरवाजिቌኍ वनजिवाई बरजिर खवातके ककी भिभूवम हहै धजिसकवा ववृकवारकोपण आवरटन हररयवालቌኍ यकोजिनवा कके अन्तगरत गवारवसभिवा कके ्ቚसतवाव कके आधिवार पर सवቌኍकवृ त वकयवा गयवा हहै। ववादቌኍ दवारवा ्ቚसतसुत ववाद पत मम आरवाजिቌኍ वनजिवाई पर अपनके कब्जिके कके सम्बन्धि मम ककोई अवभिलकेखቌኍय सवाቌኚय नहቌኍ ्ቚसतसुत वकयवा गयवा हहै , धजिसकवा वह कቝኌन अपनके ववाद पत मम अरवकत वकयवा हहै धजिस कवारण उसकवा कቝኌन सवቌኍकवार वकयके जिवानके यकोग्य नहቌኍ हहै। ववादቌኍ दवारवा ववृकवारकोपण आवरटन सवቌኍकवृ वत वदनवारक 18.10.99 कके ववरु्ቍ वदनवारक 1.1.2009 कको कवाफकी ववलम्ब सके ववाद ्ቚसतसुत वकयवा गयवा हहै और ववलम्ब कवा सप्ቖ कवारण भिቌኍ नहቌኍ दशवारयवा गयवा हहै। इस धलए उसके दफवा 5 कवानभून वमयवाद कवा लवाभि नहቌኍ वदयवा जिवा सकतवा हहै। ऐसቌኍ ससቝኌवत मम ववपकቌኍगण शम्भिभूनवाቝኌ व अशकोक कसु मवार पसुतगण खसुनखसुन कके पक मम वकयवा गयवा ववृकवारकोपण आवरटन सवቌኍकवृ वत वदनवारक 18.10.99 बहवाल रखतके हहए उसकके ववरु्ቍ ववादቌኍ दवारवा ्ቚसतसुत ववाद पत वदनवारक 1.1.2009 अत्यन्त कवालबवाधधित एवर पकोषणቌኍय न हकोनके कके कवारण वनरसत वकयके जिवानके यकोग्य हहै। अततः उपरकोक वववकेचनवा कके आधिवार पर मम इस वनष्कषर पर पहह रचतवा हह ूሺ वक ववादቌኍ दवारवा ववृकवारकोपण आवरटन सवቌኍकवृ वत वदनवारक 18.10.99 कके ववरु्ቍ ्ቚसतसुत ववाद पत वदनवारक 1.1.2009 अत्यन्त कवालबवाधधित एवर पकोषणቌኍय न हकोनके कके कवारण वनरसत वकयवा जिवातवा हहै तቝኌवा गवाम सहैदनपसुर परगनवा हवकेलቌኍ तहसቌኍल सदर ससቝኌत आ०नर० 487/0.085 हके० ववपकቌኍगण शम्भिभूनवाቝኌ व अशकोक कसु मवार कके पक मम वकयवा गयवा ववृकवारकोपण आवरटन सवቌኍकवृ वत वदनवारक 18.10.99 यቝኌवावत बहवाल रखवा जिवातवा हहै। बवाद आवश्यक कवायरववाहቌኍ पतवावलቌኍ दवाधखल दफ्तर हको। कलकेक्टर/धजिलवाधधिकवारቌኍ जिमौनपसुर" 8. The case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Rampal and Others (Supra), reflects that provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act will not be applicable in respect to the proceeding for cancellation of the lease under the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. This Court in the aforementioned case, has set aside the order condoning the delay in filing the application for cancellation of lease and remanded the matter to decide the case afresh as provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act will not be applicable in the matter except the case of fraud and misrepresentation is established within a period of 5 years from the date of knowledge of the respondent so that he may be given the benefit of Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Paragraphs 13 & 14 of the judgment are relevant for perusal which are as follows:- "13. In the cases where fraud has been committed by the defendant or his agent the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff or applicant has discovered the fraud or the mistake or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it, or in the case of a concealed document, until the plaintiff or the applicant first had the means of producing the concealed document or compelling its production. In this case, it was alleged by the respondents that Land Management Committee granted patta of the land in dispute to the respondents on 12.07.1993, which was duly approved by Sub- Divisional Officer. They were given possession over the land in dispute and their names were also mutated in the revenue records. Although the land in dispute was already allotted to the respondents and were in their possession, but without any notice/agenda and holding any meeting for allotment of the land in dispute, it was again allotted to the petitioners by resolution dated 30.05.1995 as Pradhan, Sadhuram was relation of some of allottees. Without disclosing the correct facts, approval of Sub-Divisional Officer was obtained secretly on 19.07.1995. It is only on 29.09.2005, they came to know about the allotment of the land to the petitioners and the application under Section 198 (4) of the Act was filed on 27.10.2005. From the date of discovery of fact relating to fraudulent allotment, the application was within time and the Collector has jurisdiction to try it on merit. 14. In this case, Additional Collector, by order dated 29.08.2006 condoned the delay in filing the application under Section 198 (4) of the Act, in exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. As held above, provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act, as this proceeding is of the nature of suit. In such circumstances, Additional Collector ought to have framed an issue regarding limitation and after taking evidence of both the parties, he may decide the issue relating to limitation as a preliminary issue. In case fraud and misrepresentation is established and within period of five years the fraud could not came to the knowledge of the respondents, then he may give benefit of limitation under Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963." 9. This Court in the case of Rishi Pal and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2018(140) RD 1 has held that if the proceeding for cancellation has not been initiated within the limitation, then the proceeding cannot be entertained at all. Paragraph Nos.7 to 13 of the judgment rendered in Rishi Pal and others (Supra) will be relevant for perusal which 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.
Decision
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 finding of fact recorded by the trial court that land in dispute was recorded as banjar and the same was rightly allotted for plantation purpose to the private respondents as well as the ratio of law laid down in Rishi Pal and others (Supra), no interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is required in the matter. 11. The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 25.8.2023 C.Prakash Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad