Om Prakash Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy.

Revenue Code, 2006, was affirmed.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the disputed property in question belonged to Sri Sadhai (maternal uncle of the petitioner). The said property has been in possession of the petitioner where he has his own constructions. The land in question was never vacant at any point of time and as such the private respondent no. 5 could not get any right in the said land nor could it be allotted to the respondent no. 5.

4. The disputes emerged when the private respondent no. 5 allegedly attempted to have interfer in the possession of the petitioner in respect of the disputed property.

5. It is further alleged that the private respondent no. 5 claimed rights over 2 WRIC No. 11378 of 2025 the property on the basis of an alleged lease executed by the Gaon Sabha in respect of Plot No. 445-M-714 measuring 0-1-0 situate in Village Ahada, Pargana Aldemau, Tahsil Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur which was allegedly proposed and resolved to be leased in favour of the private respondent no. 5 on 20.03.1988 by the Gaon Sabha, it was further approved on 29.05.1989 by the Collector.

6. The petitioner instituted proceedings for cancellation of the said patta on 16.12.2022, a copy of the said petition has been brought on record as Annexure No.7 wherein in paragraph 2, it has been stated that the maternal grand-father of the petitioner has his house over part of Plot No. 445/M/714.

7. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the said land came in the hands of the maternal uncle Sidhai who thereafter willed the property to the petitioner and his brother.

8. It is further submitted that the private respondent no. 5 did not have any right in respect of the disputed land and the allegations made by the private respondent no. 5 that he acquired some rights in terms of the lease was not substantiated as it was a sham document. Moreover, as per the said lease, the respondent no. 5 was required to have raised a house within a period of three years which was not done, as a consequence, he violated the terms of the lease, accordingly, the lease was liable to be cancelled.

9. The record indicates, that this matter came to be contested and after due contest, the respondent no. 3 by means of order dated 15.02.2023 dismissed the petition of the petitioner holding that it could not be established by the petitioner that the land was not vacant or that the petitioners had acquired right in the said land.

10. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision which was also dismissed on 14.07.2025 affirming the findings returned by the Collector. However, the Revisional Court took an additional ground that in terms of Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, a limitation of 3 years regarding petitions for cancellation of patta is provided and in the instant case the petition was preferred in the year 2022 relating to a patta executed in the year 1988-89 which was grossly time barred. 3 WRIC No. 11378 of 2025

11. It is being aggrieved against the aforesaid two judgments that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

12. Sri Mohd. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that both the Authorities have categorically failed to consider the impact of the judgment and decree passed in favour of the predecessors- in-interest of the petitioners in respect of a disputed property, passed on

23.04.1981 by the Competent Civil Court.

13. The contention is that on 30th May, 1975 one Sri Mani Ram had instituted a civil suit before Munsif, North, Sultanpur wherein he had claimed a decree of permanent injunction against Amar Narayan and 5 others which also included the uncle (Mama) of the petitioner namely Sidhai (who was impleaded as defendant no. 6 in the said suit).

14. It was urged that the suit had been decreed by the Trial Court and the defendants preferred a regular civil appeal. The said Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1979 was partly decreed and allowed in favour of the plaintiff of the suit Mani Ram but only in respect of the land which was indicated by the letters Aa, Ba, Sa, Da, Ma in map bearing paper no. 46-C and in so far as the suit for the other part of the land which was shown by the letters Ya, Ra, La, Wa, it was dismissed.

15. It is thus urged that the said decree confirmed the fact that the uncle of the petitioner was in possession and hence his possession over the property in question was established and it was clear indication of the fact that the land in question was not vacant and could not have been made the subject matter of allotment in favour of private respondent no. 5.

16. It is further submitted that there is no patta allegedly in favour of the respondent no. 5 and even though the objection was raised, the respondent no. 5 failed to produce any such document on record and in such circumstances, it was not open for the respondent no. 3 to have dismissed the petition for want of evidence.

17. It is urged that the Commissioner while dismissing the revision further erred in taking the additional ground of limitation, inasmuch as, the lease had been executed in the year 1988-89 and since the cause of action 4 WRIC No. 11378 of 2025 accrued only in the year 2022, hence, the limitation could not have been borrowed as the original cause of action was in respect of a patta executed in the year 1988-89 which would then be governed by the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 which did not provide for any limitation, hence, the findings recorded by the Commissioner while dismissing the revision is also patently erroneous.

18. Once, the respondent no. 5 failed to establish any patta and that he was in possession or/ and he had not raised the constructions within the time period, these grounds were sufficient to cancel the lease but ignoring the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice, accordingly, the findings returned by the Collector as well as the Commissioner are patently erroneous and against the record and the orders deserve to be set aside.

19. Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 and the learned Standing Counsel Sri Dev Prakash Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State have pointed out that at the outset once the suit for cancellation of the lease was filed in the year 2022 when the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 had taken effect and it is not the case of the petitioner that any proceedings prior to the promulgation of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was pending, hence, he cannot be given the benefit of the provisions of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act, 1950. It has also been pointed out that as far as the civil suit is concerned which is the sheet anchor for making submissions by the petitioner that in the said suit the possession was confirmed is of no aid as the Gaon Sabha or the State was not a party in the said suit.

20. It has further been urged that the land is a public utility land recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha and if at all any suit was decreed irrespective of the nature of the land but it cannot come to the aid of the petitioner as the decree of injunction can only operate in personam against the parties and where the land was that of Gaon Sabha and neither the Gaon Sabha or State were impleaded as a party, the said decree cannot operate in any manner against the State or the Gaon Sabha.

21. It has further been pointed out that as far as the issue of possession is concerned that also does not come to the aid of the petitioner, as apart from certain photographs, there was no material brought on record to 5 WRIC No. 11378 of 2025 indicate the actual right of possession of the petitioners or their predecessors to indicate long user and also to what extent and to which plot the said possession was being claimed by the petitioner either in the said civil suit of 1979 or now.

22. In light of the aforesaid, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not inspire confidence and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

23. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record.

24. At the outset, it may be noticed that certain undisputed facts emerge from the record. (i) the land in question is a public utility land and has always been recorded as such in the revenue records; (ii) the Civil Suit preferred by Sri Mani Ram bearing R.S. No. 184 of 1975 was against certain private individuals including Sri Sidhai who was the maternal uncle of the petitioner. The State or the Gaon Sabha was not impleaded in the said suit or in the appeal. (iii) The suit came to be dismissed by the Trial Court, however, in First Appeal, it was partly decreed in respect of land shown by letters Aa, Ba, Sa, Da, Ma and it was dismissed in so far as land shown by letters Ya, Ra, La, Wa in the map bearing Paper No. C-46, a copy of which has been brought on record at running page 76 of the paper-book. (iv) It is also not disputed that Sidhai had not filed any counter claim in the said suit nor sought declaration of his own right. (v) It is also an undisputed fact that the petition for cancellation of a patta said to have been executed in the year 1988-89 was executed only in the year 2022 when the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act, 1950 had been repealed and it had been replaced by the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and it is also admitted that on the date of the institution of the petition for cancellation of patta 3 years had lapsed from the promulgation of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

25. In light of the aforesaid admitted facts, the issue for consideration 6 WRIC No. 11378 of 2025 would be what rights could accrue in favour of the petitioner for seeking cancellation of a patta executed in favour of the private respondent no. 5.

26. Considering the aforesaid admitted position and from the material available on record before this Court and taking note of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, it would reveal that the right claimed by the petitioner appears to be only on the basis of possession which apparently could not be established otherwise. The judgment and decree which has been strongly relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner would indicate that though it related to an agricultural property which was governed by the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 yet while filing the said suit, the Gaon Sabha or the State was not impleaded as a party and to that extent any finding thereon can only be binding, if at all, between the private parties who were parties to the suit but not against the State or the Gaon Sabha. Moreover, the land was of public utility and vested with the Gaon Sabha and it cannot be disputed that Gaon Sabha has the right to allot such land. The allotment of land to the private respondent no. 5 has not been disputed by the Gaon Sabha or the State. Hence, the submission that the lease in favour of the respondent no. 5 was a sham document, has no force.

27. Even otherwise, if the said document of lease was sham then there was no need to institute the proceedings for cancellation of patta and there can be no cancellation of a sham document/or non-existing document. Thus, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the orders impugned on the aforesaid grounds does not impress this Court.

28. The petitioner apparently filed the petition for cancellation of the lease in the year 2022 and the submission to the effect that the cause of action would relate to the year 1989 which was then governed by the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 is misconceived, inasmuch as, the rights would have to be seen on the date when the suit had been instituted i.e. in the year 2022 and by then the provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 had already kicked in operation which also provided a limitation, hence, for the aforesaid reason the finding given by the Commissioner in this regard cannot be faulted. 7 WRIC No. 11378 of 2025

29. Once, it is noticed that the petition itself was barred by limitation, coupled with the fact that the decree of the civil suit does not come to the aid of the petitioner and another accentuating circumstance which is relevant and evident from the record is the initiation of the proceedings under Section 67 (1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against the petitioner on the premise that he had raised un-authorized constructions over the public utility land, has been taken note of by the Commissioner and such finding including the pendency of the proceedings under Section 67 (1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 could not be disputed by the petitioner. Hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find that there is any merit in the petition, accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. November 28, 2025 Asheesh (Jaspreet Singh,J.) ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Revenue Code, 2006, was affirmed.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the disputed property in question belonged to Sri Sadhai (maternal uncle of the petitioner). The said property has been in possession of the petitioner where he has his own constructions. The land in question was never vacant at any point of time and as such the private respondent no. 5 could not get any right in the said land nor could it be allotted to the respondent no. 5.

4. The disputes emerged when the private respondent no. 5 allegedly attempted to have interfer in the possession of the petitioner in respect of the disputed property.

5. It is further alleged that the private respondent no. 5 claimed rights over 2 WRIC No. 11378 of 2025 the property on the basis of an alleged lease executed by the Gaon Sabha in respect of Plot No. 445-M-714 measuring 0-1-0 situate in Village Ahada, Pargana Aldemau, Tahsil Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur which was allegedly proposed and resolved to be leased in favour of the private respondent no. 5 on 20.03.1988 by the Gaon Sabha, it was further approved on 29.05.1989 by the Collector.

6. The petitioner instituted proceedings for cancellation of the said patta on 16.12.2022, a copy of the said petition has been brought on record as Annexure No.7 wherein in paragraph 2, it has been stated that the maternal grand-father of the petitioner has his house over part of Plot No. 445/M/714.

7. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the said land came in the hands of the maternal uncle Sidhai who thereafter willed the property to the petitioner and his brother.

8. It is further submitted that the private respondent no. 5 did not have any right in respect of the disputed land and the allegations made by the private respondent no. 5 that he acquired some rights in terms of the lease was not substantiated as it was a sham document. Moreover, as per the said lease, the respondent no. 5 was required to have raised a house within a period of three years which was not done, as a consequence, he violated the terms of the lease, accordingly, the lease was liable to be cancelled.

9. The record indicates, that this matter came to be contested and after due contest, the respondent no. 3 by means of order dated 15.02.2023 dismissed the petition of the petitioner holding that it could not be established by the petitioner that the land was not vacant or that the petitioners had acquired right in the said land.

10. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision which was also dismissed on 14.07.2025 affirming the findings returned by the Collector. However, the Revisional Court took an additional ground that in terms of Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, a limitation of 3 years regarding petitions for cancellation of patta is provided and in the instant case the petition was preferred in the year 2022 relating to a patta executed in the year 1988-89 which was grossly time barred. 3 WRIC No. 11378 of 2025

11. It is being aggrieved against the aforesaid two judgments that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

12. Sri Mohd. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that both the Authorities have categorically failed to consider the impact of the judgment and decree passed in favour of the predecessors- in-interest of the petitioners in respect of a disputed property, passed on

23.04.1981 by the Competent Civil Court.

13. The contention is that on 30th May, 1975 one Sri Mani Ram had instituted a civil suit before Munsif, North, Sultanpur wherein he had claimed a decree of permanent injunction against Amar Narayan and 5 others which also included the uncle (Mama) of the petitioner namely Sidhai (who was impleaded as defendant no. 6 in the said suit).

14. It was urged that the suit had been decreed by the Trial Court and the defendants preferred a regular civil appeal. The said Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1979 was partly decreed and allowed in favour of the plaintiff of the suit Mani Ram but only in respect of the land which was indicated by the letters Aa, Ba, Sa, Da, Ma in map bearing paper no. 46-C and in so far as the suit for the other part of the land which was shown by the letters Ya, Ra, La, Wa, it was dismissed.

15. It is thus urged that the said decree confirmed the fact that the uncle of the petitioner was in possession and hence his possession over the property in question was established and it was clear indication of the fact that the land in question was not vacant and could not have been made the subject matter of allotment in favour of private respondent no. 5.

16. It is further submitted that there is no patta allegedly in favour of the respondent no. 5 and even though the objection was raised, the respondent no. 5 failed to produce any such document on record and in such circumstances, it was not open for the respondent no. 3 to have dismissed the petition for want of evidence.

17. It is urged that the Commissioner while dismissing the revision further erred in taking the additional ground of limitation, inasmuch as, the lease had been executed in the year 1988-89 and since the cause of action 4 WRIC No. 11378 of 2025 accrued only in the year 2022, hence, the limitation could not have been borrowed as the original cause of action was in respect of a patta executed in the year 1988-89 which would then be governed by the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 which did not provide for any limitation, hence, the findings recorded by the Commissioner while dismissing the revision is also patently erroneous.

18. Once, the respondent no. 5 failed to establish any patta and that he was in possession or/ and he had not raised the constructions within the time period, these grounds were sufficient to cancel the lease but ignoring the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice, accordingly, the findings returned by the Collector as well as the Commissioner are patently erroneous and against the record and the orders deserve to be set aside.

19. Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 and the learned Standing Counsel Sri Dev Prakash Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State have pointed out that at the outset once the suit for cancellation of the lease was filed in the year 2022 when the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 had taken effect and it is not the case of the petitioner that any proceedings prior to the promulgation of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was pending, hence, he cannot be given the benefit of the provisions of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act, 1950. It has also been pointed out that as far as the civil suit is concerned which is the sheet anchor for making submissions by the petitioner that in the said suit the possession was confirmed is of no aid as the Gaon Sabha or the State was not a party in the said suit.

20. It has further been urged that the land is a public utility land recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha and if at all any suit was decreed irrespective of the nature of the land but it cannot come to the aid of the petitioner as the decree of injunction can only operate in personam against the parties and where the land was that of Gaon Sabha and neither the Gaon Sabha or State were impleaded as a party, the said decree cannot operate in any manner against the State or the Gaon Sabha.

21. It has further been pointed out that as far as the issue of possession is concerned that also does not come to the aid of the petitioner, as apart from certain photographs, there was no material brought on record to 5 WRIC No. 11378 of 2025 indicate the actual right of possession of the petitioners or their predecessors to indicate long user and also to what extent and to which plot the said possession was being claimed by the petitioner either in the said civil suit of 1979 or now.

22. In light of the aforesaid, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not inspire confidence and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

23. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record.

24. At the outset, it may be noticed that certain undisputed facts emerge from the record. (i) the land in question is a public utility land and has always been recorded as such in the revenue records; (ii) the Civil Suit preferred by Sri Mani Ram bearing R.S. No. 184 of 1975 was against certain private individuals including Sri Sidhai who was the maternal uncle of the petitioner. The State or the Gaon Sabha was not impleaded in the said suit or in the appeal. (iii) The suit came to be dismissed by the Trial Court, however, in First Appeal, it was partly decreed in respect of land shown by letters Aa, Ba, Sa, Da, Ma and it was dismissed in so far as land shown by letters Ya, Ra, La, Wa in the map bearing Paper No. C-46, a copy of which has been brought on record at running page 76 of the paper-book. (iv) It is also not disputed that Sidhai had not filed any counter claim in the said suit nor sought declaration of his own right. (v) It is also an undisputed fact that the petition for cancellation of a patta said to have been executed in the year 1988-89 was executed only in the year 2022 when the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act, 1950 had been repealed and it had been replaced by the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and it is also admitted that on the date of the institution of the petition for cancellation of patta 3 years had lapsed from the promulgation of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

25. In light of the aforesaid admitted facts, the issue for consideration 6 WRIC No. 11378 of 2025 would be what rights could accrue in favour of the petitioner for seeking cancellation of a patta executed in favour of the private respondent no. 5.

26. Considering the aforesaid admitted position and from the material available on record before this Court and taking note of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, it would reveal that the right claimed by the petitioner appears to be only on the basis of possession which apparently could not be established otherwise. The judgment and decree which has been strongly relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner would indicate that though it related to an agricultural property which was governed by the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 yet while filing the said suit, the Gaon Sabha or the State was not impleaded as a party and to that extent any finding thereon can only be binding, if at all, between the private parties who were parties to the suit but not against the State or the Gaon Sabha. Moreover, the land was of public utility and vested with the Gaon Sabha and it cannot be disputed that Gaon Sabha has the right to allot such land. The allotment of land to the private respondent no. 5 has not been disputed by the Gaon Sabha or the State. Hence, the submission that the lease in favour of the respondent no. 5 was a sham document, has no force.

27. Even otherwise, if the said document of lease was sham then there was no need to institute the proceedings for cancellation of patta and there can be no cancellation of a sham document/or non-existing document. Thus, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the orders impugned on the aforesaid grounds does not impress this Court.

28. The petitioner apparently filed the petition for cancellation of the lease in the year 2022 and the submission to the effect that the cause of action would relate to the year 1989 which was then governed by the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 is misconceived, inasmuch as, the rights would have to be seen on the date when the suit had been instituted i.e. in the year 2022 and by then the provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 had already kicked in operation which also provided a limitation, hence, for the aforesaid reason the finding given by the Commissioner in this regard cannot be faulted. 7 WRIC No. 11378 of 2025

29. Once, it is noticed that the petition itself was barred by limitation, coupled with the fact that the decree of the civil suit does not come to the aid of the petitioner and another accentuating circumstance which is relevant and evident from the record is the initiation of the proceedings under Section 67 (1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against the petitioner on the premise that he had raised un-authorized constructions over the public utility land, has been taken note of by the Commissioner and such finding including the pendency of the proceedings under Section 67 (1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 could not be disputed by the petitioner. Hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find that there is any merit in the petition, accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. November 28, 2025 Asheesh (Jaspreet Singh,J.) ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench