Dismissed

Nasir Hussain v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC30 May 2023WRIC/15604/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge writ petition filed by Nasir Hussain challenged orders dismissing his case to cancel an agricultural lease granted in 1976. The High Court held that the statutory period of limitation under Section 198(6) cannot be condoned without a plea of fraud and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; impugned orders confirmed.

Nasir Hussain Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:120435

¶2

Court No. - 52

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15604 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Nasir Hussain Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shriprakash Shrivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Munna Tiwari,Sudhir Bharti

¶5

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Shripakash Sriavastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Sri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha and Sri Munna Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.5, who has appeared through caveat.

¶7

Agricultural lease was granted in favour of the respondent no.5 in the year 1976. The case under Section 198(4) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act seeking cancellation of lease was filed by the petitioner in the capacity of a complainant on the ground that the procedure prescribed for allotment has not been followed; that the land was recorded as some Rasta; that the allottees were not entitled to get allotment; and that whatever delay has occurred in instituting the proceedings, the same has occurred for the reason that the petitioner could not come to know about the allotment made earlier and such knowledge was acquired to the petitioner only when the allottee respondent no.5 tried to encroach upon the land in the year 2014 at the strength of fifth lease granted in his favour in the year 2004.

¶8

The Collector, Kushinagar, by the first order impugned dated 28.12.2016, dismissed the case. The revision filed against the said order has been dismissed by the Commissioner on 20.04.2017 i.e. the second order impugned and the review application filed against the aforesaid order has been dismissed on 24.03.2023, i.e. the third order impugned.

¶9

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allottee is not a landless person and belongs to rich category people and, therefore, the allotment was illegal. He further submits that the procedure prescribed under Rules 173 to 176 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952 was not followed. Further submission is that there were reports contrary to the defence taken by the allottee which have been ignored by the courts below and in so far as the

¶10

delay aspect is concerned, the same has not been correctly appreciated in the light of pleading and evidence led by the petitioner to the effect that he instituted the proceedings immediately after having come to know about the grant of patta as the respondent no.5 allottee tried to make interference on his spot.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha have argued that the proceedings were highly belated and, therefore, the courts below have taken a right decision. They relied upon the provisions of Section 198(6) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act.

¶12

Sri Munna Tiwari has argued that finding of fact has been recorded by the authorities while dismissing the case of the petitioner and moreover the allotment was made prior to consolidation operations and, during the consolidation operations, gatas number have changed. He further submits that complaint was maliciously launched and there was no explanation for the delay.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that Section 198(6) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act prescribes specific period of limitation for institution of the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act. The said period is dependent upon the date of allotment as provided under sub-clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (6) of Section 198 of the Act. Limitation can be condoned in those cases where the allegation of fraud has been levelled. In the present case, I do not find that the case of the petitioner was based on any plea of fraud. Procedural irregularity pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner could not supersede the period of limitation as finding of the court below is to the effect that the numbers had substantially changed during the course of consolidation and collecting evidence after 40 years of allotment would not be a reasonable approach. Even otherwise, the Collector has recorded satisfaction regarding grant of lease and he has perused the resolution made in that regard and the approval granted to the same.

¶14

The order of revisional court though short, Commissioner has simply confirmed the decision of the Collector by recording satisfaction that highly belated proceedings could not be allowed. In so far as the third order impugned i.e. the order passed on review application is concerned, no power of review is vested in the authority as review is a creation of statute which does not find mention in U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. Even otherwise, the order of Commissioner was based on consideration of record.

¶15

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that delay is attributed to the date of knowledge does not impress the Court as it is only in the case of fraud where sub-section (6) of Section 198 can be diluted which, as aforesaid, is not the case of the petitioner before either of the courts below. Reference of a judgment of this Court in the case of Jiyachhi Vs. State (2014) 124 RD 805 can be made on the point of limitation.

¶16

For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any factual or legal error in the orders impugned. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶17

Order Date :- 30.5.2023 AKShukla/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nasir Hussain v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nasir Hussain v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Rama Shankar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rudal Vs Up Zila Adhkari and 8 Others

Jagat Narayan and 18 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Pradeep Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sadanand Singh Vs State of U.P. and 16 Others

Santosh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others