The Court recalled a pending writ petition challenging orders cancelling a 1976 agricultural lease. Finding the lower authorities acted after due consideration, the petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the interim protection granted in 2014 was vacated.
Writ petition dismissed; Interim order dated 8.8.2014 vacated.
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. - 14
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41004 of 2014
Petitioner :- Sukhveer And 3 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyanendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Yadav
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the order dated 15.12.2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Saharanpur Division Saharanpur/respondent No.2 in Revision No.125 of 2009-10 (Ramdas and others Vs. Land Management Committee) as well as judgement and order dated 4.11.2009 passed by the Collector Saharanpur in Case No.31 of 2008-09 (State Vs. Ramdas and others) copy of which are annexed as Annexure Nos.1 and 3 to the writ petition respectively. A further prayer is also made to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not dispossess the petitioners and also not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioners.
When the writ petition was taken up as fresh on 8.8.2014 following order was passed:-
" Heard Sri Gyanendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.
While assailing the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the lease was granted in the year 1976 for agricultural purpose and now the same has been cancelled in the year 2009 on the proceeding initiated in 2009. In his submissions, the proceeding itself was barred by Sub-Section 6 of Section 198 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short 'the Act'). It is further contended that with respect to the same land, earlier the proceeding was initiated under Sub-Section 4 of Section 198 of the Act and there, the allotment was found to be valid, therefore also no fresh proceeding, in this regard, could be initiated.
Learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, submits that there was no need to initiate the proceedings in view of Sub-Section 5 of Section 198 of the Act, where the land falls under Section 132 of the Act.
Matter requires scrutiny.
Issue notice.
Notices on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3 have been accepted by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel whereas Sri Rajesh Yadav has accepted notice for respondent no. 4, therefore notice need not be served again to respondents no. 1 to 4.
Learned counsel for the respondents are granted six weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List thereafter.
As an interim measure without prejudice to the right and contention of the parties, subject to further order passed by this Court, in case the petitioners have yet not been dispossessed from the land in dispute, they will not be dispossessed provided :-
(i) The petitioner no. 1 deposits Rs. 1000/- and the petitioners no. 2 to 4 deposit Rs. 2500/- within a period of two months from today before the Collector, District Saharanpur.
(ii) The above amount shall be deposited every year in the same month in which the first deposit is made.
(iii) The condition of deposit will not apply in case the State Government declares the area under drought or flood.
(iv) The amount so deposited shall be kept in a separate account.
(v) In case the writ petition is allowed, the amount so deposited shall be returned to the petitioners with interest and in case the writ petition is dismissed, the amount so deposited shall go to the Gaon Sabha.
(vi) In the meantime, neither any third party right shall be created nor the land shall be used for other than agricultural purpose.
(vii) In case of default of any of the conditions, the interim protection granted today shall stand vacated."
Today when the matter is taken up, no body is present on behalf of the petitioners even in the revised call and nothing has been brought on record that whether the directions given by this Court while granting interim protection vide its order dated 8.8.2014 had been followed or not.
On the other hand, Ms. Arti Gupta along with Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned Standing counsel for the respondents supported the orders passed by the authorities and submitted that the orders passed by the authorities after due consideration of the all aspects of the matter and petition is liable to be dismissed.
I have perused the orders dated 15.12.2011 and 4.11.2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Saharanpur Division Saharanpur/respondent No.2 and the Collector Saharanpur/respondent No.3 respectively as well as the facts and grounds as contained in the writ petition challenging the aforesaid orders which are impugned.
From the perusal of the aforesaid impugned orders, facts and grounds mentioned in the writ petition, it appears that both the orders were passed by the authorities after considering all aspects of the matter and the orders do not call for any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
Interim order dated 8.8.2014 stands vacated.
Order Date :- 12.4.2019 saqlain
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders cancelling agricultural land lease and dismissing the petition call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether the proceedings were barred by the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Sukhveer And 3 Ors.
State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Prakash Padia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
