Dismissed

Adesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC30 May 2023WRIC/15949/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought injunction against dispossession of leased land alleging termination without cause. Bench observed vague averments, non-production of lease deed, and violation of auction terms. Dismissed petition finding no ground to entertain.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; respondents directed to act strictly in accordance with lease auction terms.

Adesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:122231

¶2

Court No. - 3

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15949 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Adesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shantanu Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Kaushal Kishore Mani

¶5

Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Shantanu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anand Bhaskar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Shri Kaushal Kishore Mani, learned counsel for respondent No.4- Gaon Sabha.

¶7

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following relief;

¶8

"(1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.3 not to dispossess the petitioner of his lease land having Khasra No.22 of Area 4.704 Hectare, situated at Village Khodsama, Pargana Bidoli, Tehsil Oon, District Shamli till the conclusion of two years of his lease since the date of his possession i.e. 10.03.2022."

¶9

As per averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition, the petitioner having granted a lease of the agricultural land on 2.6.2021 on the auction price of Rs.9,85,000/-. The petitioner deposited Rs.2,50,000/- on 2.6.2021 subsequently, the petitioner deposited further amount of Rs.90,000/- on 9.9.2021. Thereafter, the possession of the land was handed over to the petitioner on 10.03.2022. Since thereafter, the petitioner hass not paid any further amount in terms of the condition of the auction.

¶10

Since the petitioner has failed to deposit the balance amount of Rs.6,45,000/- in terms of the condition of the auction, it is alleged by the petitioner in paragraph no.10 of the writ petition that the Government lessee is trying to dispossess the petitioner from his leased land. This averment is vague and no specific averment has been given in the entire writ petition. Neither a copy of the lease deed has been annexed with the writ petition, which governed the terms and conditions of the lease.

¶11

The petitioner has filed the second supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record, in which the petitioner has submitted that the terms of the auction as Annexure No.1. The clause 3 & 5 of the said terms of the auction are as under:

¶12

"3- ननीललामनी स्वनीककतति कके तदिनलक सके दिदो वरर कके ललयके सवብኘ्ቈम बदोलनीदिलातिला कदो ककतर कलायर हकेतित ा दिनी जलायकेगनी।

¶13

5- ननीललाम ककी एक चचौथलाई धनरलातशि मचौकके पर हनी जमला करननी हदोगनी शिकेर धनरलातशि ननीललाम

¶14

स्वनीककतति सके पपूवर 15 तदिन कके अन्दिर जमला करननी हदोगनी। ऐसला न करनके ककी दिशिला मम जमला ककी गई धनरलातशि जब्ति कर लनी जलायकेगनी।"

¶15

As per terms of the auction, leased deed was valid for two years from the date of acceptance of the bid and the petitioner was required to deposit the entire auction amount within 15 days of the zcceptance of the bid, which admittedly has not been deposited by the petitioner.

¶16

Despite, the time granted on 25.5.2023 by this Court, the petitioner has failed to produce the lease deed or receipt of payment in terms of the conditions of auction.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the terms of lease has not been expired and the respondents are trying to evict without complying to the terms of lease and the respondents may be restrained from initiating any coercive action against the petitioner.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State on instruction submits that the petitioner has failed to deposit Rs.6,45,000/- which is categorically violation of the condition no.5 of the terms of the auction. Hence, appropriate action shall be taken for termination of the lease deed.

¶19

Since the instant writ petition has been filed on the vague averments and the lease has not yet been terminated by the State Government, hence this Court finds no good ground to entertain this writ petition and hence the writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

¶20

However, it is made clear that the respondents shall act strictly in accordance with the terms of the lease auction. If any action is taken in pursuance of the lease deed, the petitioner may avail such remedy as may be available to him under law.

¶21

Order Date :- 30.5.2023 SFH

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHIM HUSAIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Adesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Smt Savita Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Ramjilal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rastriya Sabha and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others