Shiv Lakhan Singh v. State of U.P. and

Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, who appears for the respondents 2 to 6.

2. The writ petition seeks the following reliefs:- “A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI calling for the records and quashing the impugned order dated 26.10.2024 passed by respondent no. 5 / Zonal Officer, Zone-2, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur. (Annexure No. 1) B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondent no. 2 to restore the petitioner's lease over Plot No. 3 area 3.92 acres (consisting of part of Plot Nos. 32 and 33 of Village Ruma, Jajmau, Kanpur) at Jajmau Sewage Farm C. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 to repair and construct the damaged Treated Sewage Water Minor Canal (250 feet long) upon Plot No. 3 area 3.92 acres (consisting of part of Plot Nos. 32 and 33 of Village Ruma, Jajmau, Kanpur) at Jajmau Sewage Farm; D. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and directing the respondents to grant permission to petitioner to construct shed for labourers upon Plot No. 3 area 3.92 acres (consisting of part of Plot Nos. 32 and 33 of Village Ruma, Jajmau, Kanpur) at Jajmau Sewage E. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and directing therespondents to generate Computer Code & Account for payment of revenue/lease rent and irrigation charges for the Plot No. 3 area 3.92 acres (consisting of part of Plot Nos. 32 and 33 of Village Ruma, Jajmau, Kanpur) at Jajmau Sewage Farm;”

3. It is admitted to learned counsel for the parties that the land in question in the instant writ petition along with other land was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 for "Sewage Farm Yojna" under the Sewage Utilization Scheme, which was for utilizing sewage water from sewage treatment plants (STP) for irrigation. The notification under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, for such acquisition is dated 13.03.1951. It is also not in issue that in 1959, this land came to be vested in the Nagar Nigam, Kanpur.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that on 05.11.1969 plot Nos. 32 and 33 of Village Ruma, Jajmau, Kanpur were leased to the petitioners' father on

05.11.1969 by the order of the Regional Officer and the Sahayak Nagar Adhikari (Sewage), Zone No.1 (East), Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur. The formal lease agreement is stated to have been executed on 02.07.1974. Although, this lease was for a period of one year only, petitioners' father and subsequently the petitioners, continued in possession over the leased land and regular rent was paid by them till 2017. No lease rent was deposited thereafter as the Nagar Nigam did not issue bills or challans for such deposit.

5. In the year 2023-24, it is stated that several representations were made by the petitioners' father for repairing of the damaged minor canal used for irrigation by him. Permission was also sought for constructions of a shed.

6. These representations remained unaddressed, therefore, it appears that Writ Petition No.10754 of 2024 (Shiv Lakhan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 5

Others) was filed, which was disposed of on 10.04.2024 with a direction to the respondent no.5 in the writ petition to decide the representation(s) within four weeks.

7. Since this order remained un-complied with, the petitioners filed a contempt petition, wherein notice was issued to the respondent, therein. It appears that thereafter an order was passed on 26.10.2024 by the Zonal Officer, respondent no.5, which is impugned in the instant writ petition.

8. Apart from the above, it is also the case of the petitioners that in the year 2006, the officials of the Kanpur Development Authority, the Nagar Nigam Kanpur and the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation visited the farms of the petitioners and other similar situated persons because the Kanpur Development Authority was planning to sell this land to the U.P.S.I.D.C. for construction of industries and residential accomodation.

9. Against this proposed sale one Sahab Lal preferred Writ-C No. 70225 of 2006. This petition was disposed of finally by the order dated 07.03.2018 2 directing the respondents not to evict the tenants from the sewage scheme land, except in accordance with law.

10. Thereafter a dispute appears to have been raised as to who has jurisdiction over the land and whether the land is vested and is under the control of Kanpur Development Authority or the Municipal Corporation.

11. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned dated 26.10.2024 is vitiated having been passed without opportunity of hearing and therefore, in violation of principles of natural justice.

12. It is also contended that the user of the land cannot be changed as it was acquired in the year 1951 for Sewage Farm Yojna under the Sewage Utilization Scheme. The land leased to the petitioners is agricultural land and its user cannot be changed.

13. Insofar as such change in user is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us orders passed in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.125 of 2025.

14. Perusal of these orders reveal that the issue in the PIL is regarding change of user of the land and in its regard there also exists a dispute as to whether Nagar Nigam and the Kanpur Development Authority is to exercise control over the land acquired under the Sewage Farm Yojna, which dispute has been referred to the State Government for a decision in that regard.

15. Shri Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, appearing for the Nagar Nigam Kanpur has reiterated what is stated in the impugned order dated 26.10.2024 which order has been passed consequent to the directions issued in Writ Petition No.10754 of 2024 alluded to herein above.

16. The impugned order states that on 05.11.1969, an order was issued in favour of Shiv Lakhan Singh, the father of the petitioner and that a covenant on general stamp paper of Rs.3 dated 05.07.1974 was produced by petitioner’s father. It also states that this covenant was for a period of one year and there was no evidence produced to evidence its renewal or extention. Thus, Shiv Lakhan Singh on 05.11.1969 was granted lease of plot 3 no.3 area 3.92 acres comprising of plot nos.32 and 33, on lease rent of Rs.200 per acre for agricultural purposes for one year only with the stiuplation that the right to use this land for agricultural purposes would come to an end, unless the Mahapalika/now Nagar Nigam did not renew it on fresh terms and conditions.

17. The impugned order also records that a lease for a period of one year or more could only have been granted by means of a registered document; lease/transfer of land could only be under orders of the Municipal Commissioner/Chief Municipal Officer; The so called lease dated

05.11.1969 was by Circle Officer and its renewal dated 09.08.1974 was by Santosh Kumar Shukla, Nagar Adhikari Sewage who had no right to either grant a lease or renew it. Therefore, the document dated 09.08.1974 cannot be turned as a valid renewal of the lease.

18. The order further records that all this was illegally done because Shiv Lakhan Singh, the father of the petitioner was, at the relevant time, Executive Engineer (Civil) in the Nagar Nigam Kanpur and had used his influence to obtain this illegal lease in connivance with the officials of the Nagar Nigam.

19. Finally the order records that since the lease was in any case only for a period of one year, which was never extended, the representations made by the petitioner were liable to be rejected.

20. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order, which would justify any interference therein.

21. Even if it is accepted that the petitioners’-predecessor-in-interest had been granted a lease, the same came to an end after expiry of one year as it was never extended, thereafter. Even rent has been paid by the petitioner till the year 2017 the same cannot be termed extension of the lease and it is at the very best a case of holding over.

22. The alternative submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that there exists a dispute between the Nagar Nigam and the Kanpur Development Authority and that there is proposed change of user of the land 4 in question, which is impermissible. This, in our considered opinion, are issues beyond the claim and rights of the petitioners.

23. It is not in dispute that the petitioner base their claim in the writ petition upon an alleged lease granted by the Kanpur Nagar Nigam and therefore, it does not lie in their mouth to raise an issue regarding a dispute between the Nagar Nigam and the Kanpur Development Authority as regards domain over the land, especially when the impugned order has been passed by an officer of the Nagar Nigam Kanpur.

24. In any case the dispute as admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner is pending consideration before the State Government. However, this Court does not see any justification to enter into this controversy at the behest of the petitioner who have no right title or interest in the land allegedly leased in their favour by the Nagar Nigam, which has expired long back and has never been extended. In any case, it is rightly observed in the order impugned that a lease for a period of one year or beyond could only be by a registered document.

25. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition.

26. It is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Mayank MAYANK KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 5

Others) was filed, which was disposed of on 10.04.2024 with a direction to the respondent no.5 in the writ petition to decide the representation(s) within four weeks.

7. Since this order remained un-complied with, the petitioners filed a contempt petition, wherein notice was issued to the respondent, therein. It appears that thereafter an order was passed on 26.10.2024 by the Zonal Officer, respondent no.5, which is impugned in the instant writ petition.

8. Apart from the above, it is also the case of the petitioners that in the year 2006, the officials of the Kanpur Development Authority, the Nagar Nigam Kanpur and the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation visited the farms of the petitioners and other similar situated persons because the Kanpur Development Authority was planning to sell this land to the U.P.S.I.D.C. for construction of industries and residential accomodation.

9. Against this proposed sale one Sahab Lal preferred Writ-C No. 70225 of 2006. This petition was disposed of finally by the order dated 07.03.2018 2 directing the respondents not to evict the tenants from the sewage scheme land, except in accordance with law.

10. Thereafter a dispute appears to have been raised as to who has jurisdiction over the land and whether the land is vested and is under the control of Kanpur Development Authority or the Municipal Corporation.

11. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned dated 26.10.2024 is vitiated having been passed without opportunity of hearing and therefore, in violation of principles of natural justice.

12. It is also contended that the user of the land cannot be changed as it was acquired in the year 1951 for Sewage Farm Yojna under the Sewage Utilization Scheme. The land leased to the petitioners is agricultural land and its user cannot be changed.

13. Insofar as such change in user is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us orders passed in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.125 of 2025.

14. Perusal of these orders reveal that the issue in the PIL is regarding change of user of the land and in its regard there also exists a dispute as to whether Nagar Nigam and the Kanpur Development Authority is to exercise control over the land acquired under the Sewage Farm Yojna, which dispute has been referred to the State Government for a decision in that regard.

15. Shri Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, appearing for the Nagar Nigam Kanpur has reiterated what is stated in the impugned order dated 26.10.2024 which order has been passed consequent to the directions issued in Writ Petition No.10754 of 2024 alluded to herein above.

16. The impugned order states that on 05.11.1969, an order was issued in favour of Shiv Lakhan Singh, the father of the petitioner and that a covenant on general stamp paper of Rs.3 dated 05.07.1974 was produced by petitioner’s father. It also states that this covenant was for a period of one year and there was no evidence produced to evidence its renewal or extention. Thus, Shiv Lakhan Singh on 05.11.1969 was granted lease of plot 3 no.3 area 3.92 acres comprising of plot nos.32 and 33, on lease rent of Rs.200 per acre for agricultural purposes for one year only with the stiuplation that the right to use this land for agricultural purposes would come to an end, unless the Mahapalika/now Nagar Nigam did not renew it on fresh terms and conditions.

17. The impugned order also records that a lease for a period of one year or more could only have been granted by means of a registered document; lease/transfer of land could only be under orders of the Municipal Commissioner/Chief Municipal Officer; The so called lease dated

05.11.1969 was by Circle Officer and its renewal dated 09.08.1974 was by Santosh Kumar Shukla, Nagar Adhikari Sewage who had no right to either grant a lease or renew it. Therefore, the document dated 09.08.1974 cannot be turned as a valid renewal of the lease.

18. The order further records that all this was illegally done because Shiv Lakhan Singh, the father of the petitioner was, at the relevant time, Executive Engineer (Civil) in the Nagar Nigam Kanpur and had used his influence to obtain this illegal lease in connivance with the officials of the Nagar Nigam.

19. Finally the order records that since the lease was in any case only for a period of one year, which was never extended, the representations made by the petitioner were liable to be rejected.

20. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order, which would justify any interference therein.

21. Even if it is accepted that the petitioners’-predecessor-in-interest had been granted a lease, the same came to an end after expiry of one year as it was never extended, thereafter. Even rent has been paid by the petitioner till the year 2017 the same cannot be termed extension of the lease and it is at the very best a case of holding over.

22. The alternative submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that there exists a dispute between the Nagar Nigam and the Kanpur Development Authority and that there is proposed change of user of the land 4 in question, which is impermissible. This, in our considered opinion, are issues beyond the claim and rights of the petitioners.

23. It is not in dispute that the petitioner base their claim in the writ petition upon an alleged lease granted by the Kanpur Nagar Nigam and therefore, it does not lie in their mouth to raise an issue regarding a dispute between the Nagar Nigam and the Kanpur Development Authority as regards domain over the land, especially when the impugned order has been passed by an officer of the Nagar Nigam Kanpur.

24. In any case the dispute as admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner is pending consideration before the State Government. However, this Court does not see any justification to enter into this controversy at the behest of the petitioner who have no right title or interest in the land allegedly leased in their favour by the Nagar Nigam, which has expired long back and has never been extended. In any case, it is rightly observed in the order impugned that a lease for a period of one year or beyond could only be by a registered document.

25. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition.

26. It is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Mayank MAYANK KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 5