High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:217597 Court No. - 51 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36080 of 2023 Petitioner :- Brijendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Kumar Yadav,Vinod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hari Narayan Singh Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. Mahendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.P. Singh Bishen, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Hari Narayan Singh for the respondent no.6-Gaon Sabha. 2. The instant petition has been filed against the order dated 24.9.2019, passed by respondent no.2 u/s 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as well as the order dated 29.4.2015, passed by respondent no.3 u/s 198 (4) of of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 3. In the petition, it is mentioned that plot no.1005 area 0.21 decimal, plot no.1112 area 0.29 decimal and plot no.1113 area 0.10 decimal (old plot no.956) was recorded as banzar in the revenue records. It is further mentioned that allotment for agricultural purpose was made in favour of respondent no.5 in the year 1988- 89. It is further mentioned that petitioner initiated a proceeding for cancellation of lease executed in favour of respondent no.5 in the year 2010. It is further mentioned that the proceeding was registered as Case No.20 of 2015. Respondent no.3/District Magistrate/Collector, Kannauj, vide order dated 29.4.2015, rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Petitioner challenged the order dated 29.4.2015 through revision u/s 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which was dismissed, vide order dated 24.9.2019, hence this petition on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Stamp reporter has reported latches of 1362 days in filing the petition, which has been explained in paragraph nos.22 to 28 of the writ petition.
Decision
5. In the writ petition, ground has been taken that allotment has been made in an arbitrary manner as such the lease executed in favour of respondent no.5 is liable to be cancelled. It is further mentioned that respondent no.5 is not eligible for the allotment as such the lease executed in favour of respondent no.5 cannot be maintained in view of the provisions contained under U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 6. Mr. S.P. Singh Bishen, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Hari Narayan Singh for the respondent no.6-Gaon Sabha submitted that proceeding for cancellation initiated by petitioner is barred by limitation as prescribed u/s 198 (6) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and u/s 128 (1-A) of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006. They further submitted that both the courts have recorded findings that proceeding is highly time barred as such the application for cancellation of lease as well as revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, which requires no interference by this Court. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that plot in dispute was allotted to respondent no.5 for agricultural purpose in the year 1988-89 and the proceedings for cancellation have been initiated in the year 2010 as pleaded in the writ petition. There is also no dispute about the fact that both the courts have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground of violation of mandatory condition for initiating proceeding for cancellation of lease as provided under the Act/Code. 9. In order to appreciate the controversy, perusal of Sections 198 (6) of of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and Sections 128 (1-A) of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 will be relevant, which are as under :- " U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950:- Section 198 (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. U.P. Revenue Code 2006:- "Section 128 (1-A) provides that any application under sub-section (1) may be moved in case of allotment of land made before the commencement of this Code, within 5 years from the date of such commencement and in case of allotment of land made on or after..." 10. The perusal of the finding recorded by the Collector, Kannauj while passing the order dated 29.4.2015, will also be relevant, which is as under :- सदकयय कक भलल- वरर बदद पसतसत वकयद गयद हह, " ववददन अधधवकदगण कक तकरर कक ससनद एरव पतदवलल पर उपलबध पकगण कक समसत तथयय/ भदभवत अनसशललन वकयद गयद। पतदवलल मम शदवमल छदयद पवत सल.एच.-41 कक अवलककन यह सपष हह वक वववदवदत आरदजल आवरटन कक समय बरजर दजर थल। पटद वनरसतलकरण कद वदद आवरटन कक लगभग 56 दकरल कद भल ककई कदरण नहल वदयद गयद हह। ववपकल वतरमदन समय मम वववदवदत आरदजल पर सरकमणलय भभवमधर कक रप मम दजर हह। इसकक अवतररक पवतवददल कक ववददन अधधवकद ददरद ददधखल वववभन नयदवयक वयवसथदओर कक अवलककन सक यह पभणररपकण सपष हह वक पटद वनरसतलकरण हकतस वमयदरद 07 वरर बदद ददयर वकयद गयद हह, जक वक वमयदरद कक बदहर हकनक कक कदरण पकरणलय नहल हह। इसकक अवतररक वददल यह धसद नहल कर सकद हह वक वह आवरटन सक वकस पकदर कसबध वयवक हह। वतरमदन पररससथवतयय मम ददवद कदलबदधधत (Beyond (Aggrieve Person) हकनक एरव वददल आवरटन सक कसबध वयवक (Aggrieved Person) न Limitation) हकनक कक कदरण वददल ददरद पसतसत वदद अ० धदरद-198(4) ज०वव०अ० गदहयतद सतर पर सवलकदर वकयक जदनक यकगय नहल पदयद जदतद हह तथद वनरसत वकयद जदनद नयदयकवचत एरव ववधधक पतलत हकतद हह। वकनतस वददल नक यह वदद लगभग 56 वरर हह, आदकश उपरकक वववकचनद कक आधदर पर वददल शल बबजकनद धसरह पसत बदवभरदम, वन० गदम नगलद मधई ममजद वबरमलल परगनद तदलगदम, तहसलल वछबरदमऊ, जनपद कनमज ददरद यकधजत पटद वनरसतलकरण कद वदद वदनदरवकत 6.3.2009 बलहलन हकनक कक कदरण वनरसत वकयद जदतद हह। आदकश कक पवत उप धजलदधधकदरल/ तहसललददर वछबरदमऊ कक सभचनदथर एरव आवशयक कदयरवदहल हकतस पकवरत कक जदयक। बदद आवशयक कदयरवदहल पतदवलल सरवचत अवभलकखदगदर कक जदयक। अनसज कस मदर झद) ( कलककटर कनमज।" 11. The perusal of the finding of fact recorded by the Collector Kannauj reveals that cancellation proceeding is highly time barred as such the same cannot be entertained in view of the provisions contained under the Act/Code. 12. This Court in the case of Rishipal and others vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2018 (140) RD 1 has held that application for cancellation of lease cannot be entertained after prescribed period of limitation as provided under the Act/Code and rule framed thereunder. 13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned Judgement. 14. Writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 16.11.2023 m.a. Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AYYUB High Court of Judicature at Allahabad