High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Shiv Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Vakalatnama has been filed by Sri Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate on behalf of respondent no. 7, same is taken on record.

2. Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was granted agricultural lease over the land situated at Gata No. 1208/0.772 hectares, situated at Village - Sakra, Pragana - Kakori, Tehsil - Sarojni Nagar, District - Lucknow. It is submitted that a complaint with regard to illegal allotment of the said lease was given some time in 2021, stating that the land was not a land on which agricultural lease could have been granted and entire process allotment is illegal and arbitrary and prayer for cancellation of lease granted in favour of petitioner was made.

4. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sarojni Nagar while allowing the said complaint against petitioner has recorded that in the revenue records Gata No. 979 and Gata No. 1208, area 0.772 hectares was not a vacant piece of land and a school, water tank, road and kabristan were existing on the said land and in the aforesaid circumstances, no allotment or lease could have been granted in respect to the said land. He has further recorded the fact that a report was submitted by the concerned Lekhpal also that the said lease deserves to be cancelled.

5. It is further noticed that though ground pertaining to delay in moving an application for cancellation was taken by the petitioner before the competent authority, stating that the application has been made after substantially long delay of 15 years, but the said arguments was rejected stating that limitation Act is not applicable to the proceedings for cancellation of patta (lease) and accordingly, application for cancellation was allowed.

6. The petitioner filed revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2002, before the Board of Revenue, who in a very summary manner has rejected the revision only on account of the fact that Additional Collector has conducted physical inspection and found the grant of lease to be illegal and accordingly stated that there was no reason to interfere in the said matter.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that perusal of Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 would indicate that same pertains to lease lease of land either prior to commencement of the Code, 2006 or any lease or allotment made after coming into force of the Code, 2006, which can be cancelled within five years from the date of such allotment of lease. Accordingly, any application moved under Section 128 of the Code, 2006, for cancellation of allotment of lease, has to be made within the prescription provided in the stature itself.

8. In the present case, undoubtedly, the application was made some time in 2021, i.e. after expiry of more than 15 years. Despite such objection having been raised by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, same was rejected. While on the other hand, the Chairman, Board of Revenue has not gone into or looked or examined the issue of limitation, while rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioner.

9. Bare perusal of impugned order would indicate lack of application of mind by the revenue Courts who without even considering the grounds raised by the petitioner before the revenue Courts, who have clearly exercised their jurisdiction contrary to the statutory provisions of limitation as prescribed under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006

10. It is not that period of limitation was prescribed for the first time in the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Considering the fact that even in the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, under Section 198(4), provision existed for cancellation of lease or allotment. There also prescription of statutory period of limitation was prescribed in sub Section (6) of Section 196, which was seven years and five years from the date of allotment in peculiar circumstances.

11. Apart from the above, it is noticed that there is a detailed process for grant of lease which has been provided, according to which as per Section 173 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act read with Rules 195, 196 and 197 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, the Land Management Committee has to consider the applications and make out a list of persons to whom land ought to be settled. The proposal of Land Management Committee is forwarded to the Sub Divisional Magistrate who after examining all the matters approves the list and subsequently land is allotted.

12. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that allotment of land or Patta is on the face of it is dehorse statutory prescription. Complaint with regard to illegal allotment of land or Patta can be made but the same ought to be made within the period of limitation prescribed in the statute itself. In case arguments of the respondents are accepted that the application for cancellation of allotment of land can be made at any point of time, then testing the arguments on the anvil of statutory provisions, it is noticed that the same is contrary to the provisions of Section 128 of the Code, 2006, and also be contrary to Article 300 A of the Constitution of India, where the right to property, undisputedly, is a constitutional right and a person can be deprived of the same only in accordance with law. Law in this regard has been provided under Section 128 of the Code, 2006 and it has to be adhered to while depriving any person of his right to property. Any action taken which dehorse the law, meaning thereby is violation of Section 128 of the Code, 2006 and also contrary to Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

13. Accordingly, this Court is not in agreement with the arguments raised by learned counsel for the respondents that an application for cancellation of lease/allotment of land can be entertained even after statutory prescription made under Section 128 of the Code, 2006, which is five years from the date of allotment. The time period is mandatory and no provision exists for enhancement of the same.

14. For the reasons above, this Court finds that the impugned orders dated 28.04.2025 and 10.01.2025, passed by the Board of Revenue as well as Assistant District Collector (Administration), Lucknow, respectively, are illegal and arbitrary and are accordingly set aside.

15. The writ petition stands allowed. Order Date :- 4.7.2025 A. Verma ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shiv Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Vakalatnama has been filed by Sri Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate on behalf of respondent no. 7, same is taken on record.

2. Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was granted agricultural lease over the land situated at Gata No. 1208/0.772 hectares, situated at Village - Sakra, Pragana - Kakori, Tehsil - Sarojni Nagar, District - Lucknow. It is submitted that a complaint with regard to illegal allotment of the said lease was given some time in 2021, stating that the land was not a land on which agricultural lease could have been granted and entire process allotment is illegal and arbitrary and prayer for cancellation of lease granted in favour of petitioner was made.

4. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sarojni Nagar while allowing the said complaint against petitioner has recorded that in the revenue records Gata No. 979 and Gata No. 1208, area 0.772 hectares was not a vacant piece of land and a school, water tank, road and kabristan were existing on the said land and in the aforesaid circumstances, no allotment or lease could have been granted in respect to the said land. He has further recorded the fact that a report was submitted by the concerned Lekhpal also that the said lease deserves to be cancelled.

5. It is further noticed that though ground pertaining to delay in moving an application for cancellation was taken by the petitioner before the competent authority, stating that the application has been made after substantially long delay of 15 years, but the said arguments was rejected stating that limitation Act is not applicable to the proceedings for cancellation of patta (lease) and accordingly, application for cancellation was allowed.

6. The petitioner filed revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2002, before the Board of Revenue, who in a very summary manner has rejected the revision only on account of the fact that Additional Collector has conducted physical inspection and found the grant of lease to be illegal and accordingly stated that there was no reason to interfere in the said matter.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that perusal of Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 would indicate that same pertains to lease lease of land either prior to commencement of the Code, 2006 or any lease or allotment made after coming into force of the Code, 2006, which can be cancelled within five years from the date of such allotment of lease. Accordingly, any application moved under Section 128 of the Code, 2006, for cancellation of allotment of lease, has to be made within the prescription provided in the stature itself.

8. In the present case, undoubtedly, the application was made some time in 2021, i.e. after expiry of more than 15 years. Despite such objection having been raised by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, same was rejected. While on the other hand, the Chairman, Board of Revenue has not gone into or looked or examined the issue of limitation, while rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioner.

9. Bare perusal of impugned order would indicate lack of application of mind by the revenue Courts who without even considering the grounds raised by the petitioner before the revenue Courts, who have clearly exercised their jurisdiction contrary to the statutory provisions of limitation as prescribed under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006

10. It is not that period of limitation was prescribed for the first time in the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Considering the fact that even in the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, under Section 198(4), provision existed for cancellation of lease or allotment. There also prescription of statutory period of limitation was prescribed in sub Section (6) of Section 196, which was seven years and five years from the date of allotment in peculiar circumstances.

11. Apart from the above, it is noticed that there is a detailed process for grant of lease which has been provided, according to which as per Section 173 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act read with Rules 195, 196 and 197 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, the Land Management Committee has to consider the applications and make out a list of persons to whom land ought to be settled. The proposal of Land Management Committee is forwarded to the Sub Divisional Magistrate who after examining all the matters approves the list and subsequently land is allotted.

12. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that allotment of land or Patta is on the face of it is dehorse statutory prescription. Complaint with regard to illegal allotment of land or Patta can be made but the same ought to be made within the period of limitation prescribed in the statute itself. In case arguments of the respondents are accepted that the application for cancellation of allotment of land can be made at any point of time, then testing the arguments on the anvil of statutory provisions, it is noticed that the same is contrary to the provisions of Section 128 of the Code, 2006, and also be contrary to Article 300 A of the Constitution of India, where the right to property, undisputedly, is a constitutional right and a person can be deprived of the same only in accordance with law. Law in this regard has been provided under Section 128 of the Code, 2006 and it has to be adhered to while depriving any person of his right to property. Any action taken which dehorse the law, meaning thereby is violation of Section 128 of the Code, 2006 and also contrary to Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

13. Accordingly, this Court is not in agreement with the arguments raised by learned counsel for the respondents that an application for cancellation of lease/allotment of land can be entertained even after statutory prescription made under Section 128 of the Code, 2006, which is five years from the date of allotment. The time period is mandatory and no provision exists for enhancement of the same.

14. For the reasons above, this Court finds that the impugned orders dated 28.04.2025 and 10.01.2025, passed by the Board of Revenue as well as Assistant District Collector (Administration), Lucknow, respectively, are illegal and arbitrary and are accordingly set aside.

15. The writ petition stands allowed. Order Date :- 4.7.2025 A. Verma ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Alok Mathur, J.)