The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging orders cancelling a land lease on grounds of laches and lack of merit. The Court held that findings of fact regarding the non-existence of a resolution were not amenable to interference under Article 226.
Writ petition dismissed on grounds of laches and lack of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 11
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 10474 of 1996
Petitioner :- Bija Respondent :- Board Of Revenue & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chankra Shekhar Sharma,Ajay Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,K.B.Garg
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Case has been called out in the revised list. No one appears for the petitioner. Standing Counsel representing respondent nos.1 to 3 is present.
As the case is pending since 1996 the Court has considered the matter even though the counsel for the petitioner is not present.
On an application filed by respondent no.7 under section 198(4) of the U.P Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act,1950, Case No.80/85-86 was registered before the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue) District Saharanpur i.e respondent no. 3 for cancellation of lease of the disputed plots allegedly allotted to the petitioner. It transpires from the record that the aforesaid lease was alleged to have been granted to the petitioner in pursuance of some resolution dated 16.2.1982 passed by the concerned Land Management Committee. The respondent no. 3 after considering the evidence produced in the case cancelled the lease in favour of the petitioner through his order dated 24.4.1990. In his judgment dated 24.4.1990, the respondent no. 3 has recorded the fact that the concerned Lekh Pal was examined by the Court and on the basis of records denied that any resolution dated 16.2.1982 was passed by the Land Management Committee recommending allotment of lease in favour of the petitioner. Against the order dated 24.4.1990 passed by respondent no.3, the petitioner filed Revision No.86/1989-90 before the Additional Commissioner(Judicial), Meerut Division, Meerut i.e respondent no.2 which was dismissed by respondent no.2 vide his judgment and order dated 9.5.1991. Against the order dated 9.5.1991 passed by respondent no.2, the petitioner filed a second revision before the Board of Revenue, U.P at Allahabad i.e respondent no.1 which was
numbered as Revision No.43 of 1990-91 which was initially allowed by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 29.4.1993 but subsequently on a review application filed by respondent no.7 registering Review Case No. 225 of 92-93, the order dated 29.4.1993 was recalled, the review application was allowed and Revision No. 43 of 1990-91 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The said order was passed by the Board of Revenue on 7.9.1995. The orders dated 7.9.1995, 9.5.1991 and 24.4.1990 have been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
When the case was taken up as a fresh case by this Court on 25.3.1996, the petitioner was granted time to file a supplementary affidavit explaining the delay in filing the writ petition. No such affidavit has yet been filed by the petitioner. In the circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches only. However, I have considered the case on merit. A perusal of the order dated 24.4.1990 passed by respondent no.3 shows that the order cancelling the lease in favour of the petitioner was passed on the ground that no resolution was passed by the concerned Land Management Committee recommending grant of lease in favour of the petitioner and the alleged resolution dated 16.2.1982 passed by the Land Management Committee was denied by the concerned Lekh Pal in evidence. The aforesaid finding have been upheld by respondent nos.1 & 2 in their orders dated 9.5.1991 and 7.9.1995. The aforesaid are findings of fact and not amenable to interference by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition lacks merits and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.4.2018
IB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the factual finding regarding non-existence of a resolution recommending lease allotment is amenable to interference under Article 226.
Whether the writ petition suffers from laches and lacks merit.
Bija
Board Of Revenue
Salil Kumar Rai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
