Allowed

Smt. Kusumwati v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC12 May 2023WRIC/12222/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order cancelling the petitioner's agricultural land lease and set aside the subsequent revision order, holding that the respondent authority acted without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing before taking adverse action.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 19.01.2023 relating to the petitioner is quashed and the revision order dated 13.02.2023 is set aside. The matter is remanded to pass an order after a hearing.

Smt. Kusumwati Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:103768

¶2

Court No. - 26

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12222 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Kusumwati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Meraj Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Meraj Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhineet Jaiswal, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶7

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner alongwith 20 other persons were allotted the lease of agricultural land on 20.06.2004 by the Land Management Committee of Village- Lawar Asadpur, Tehsil- Gunnaur, District- Sambhal, which was duly approved by the SubDivisional Magistrate. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one Dheer pal, after about 13 years challenged the allotment of land to one ineligible person, namely Smt Shanti Devi.

¶8

3. On the complaint of the said Sri Dheer Pal, in the Case No. 775 of 2017 under Section 128 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006, case was registered against the said Smt. Shanti Devi and the Land Management Committee. The petitioner herein was neither a party nor her allotment was under challenge in the said case.

¶9

4. Vide order dated 19.01.2023, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Tehsil- Gunnar, District Sambhal, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or other similarly situated persons recorded a finding that the land so allotted by the Land Management Committee on 20.06.2004 was the pubic utility land of Category-VI(4) Sand, CategoryVI(1) River and Category-VI(4) Khar. Therefore, under Section 132 of UPZALR Act, the said land, which is a public utility land cannot be allotted to anyone.

¶10

5. In view of the aforesaid finding recorded, the learned SubDivisional Magistrate cancelled all the leases allotted to 21 persons including that of the petitioner, however, no opportunity of hearing was ever given either to the petitioner or other 20 similarly situated persons. The petitioner and some

¶11

other persons filed a Revision No. 365/23 (Mohan and Others v. State of U.P. and Ors) under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code2006 which has also been dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2023.

¶12

6. Learned counsel for the State-respondents submits that from the reading of order dated 19.01.2023 it is apparent that no notice has ever been issued to the petitioner or other similarly situated persons before passing the order.

¶13

7. In view thereof, the order dated 19.01.2023 to the extent it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed and consequently, the order dated 13.02.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, is also set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Sambhal, to pass an appropriate order afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein.

¶14

8. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 12.5.2023 Shubham Arya

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Kusumwati v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kusumwati v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shobha Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 13 Others

Jai Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 18 Others

Asharfi Devi Vs Sub District Magistrate, Deoria and 2 Others

Omwati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jal Kalyan Seva Sansthan Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Prithvee Pal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others