Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC29 May 2023WRIC/17243/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the cancellation of an assami lease granted in 1983 due to alleged non-vacancy of land. The High Court dismissed the petition, noting the lease had expired in 1988, no evidence was led by the petitioners even after an ex-parte order was recalled, and deaths of parties did not vitiate the proceedings under the Zamindari Abolition Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed against the cancellation of the assami lease was dismissed.

Jagat Narayan and 18 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:119736

¶2

Court No. - 52

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17243 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Jagat Narayan And 18 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Dayal Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Pankaj Kumar Gupta

¶5

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel representing the Gaon Sabha.

¶7

The assami lease was granted in favour of various persons in respect of various gatas on 29.07.1983. Admittedly, the proceedings under section 198(4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 were instituted against the patta holders on 09.08.1983 i.e. 12 days from the grant of patta. In these proceedings, a vakalatnama was filed on behalf of the allottees, however later on they disappeared from the proceedings. Nevertheless for some reason or the other, the said proceedings remained pending for a period of 34 years and the Additional Collector concerned by order dated 11.08.2017 cancelled the lease on the ground that there was existence of Islamiya school, Qabristan and Abadi on the spot and the land was not vacant prior to allotment. The petitioners, terming the order dated 11.08.2017 as ex-parte, filed a recall application, which was allowed on 09.02.2021 setting aside the previous order and directing the allottees to lead evidence in support of their defence. The proceedings were restored accordingly.

¶8

Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 14.06.2022, the Additional Collector, Siddharth Nagar has maintained his order dated 11.08.2017. The said order was assailed in revision under section 333 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950. The Commissioner, Basti Division Basti has dismissed the revision at the admission stage on 27.03.2023.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 11.08.2017 was ex-parte and even if, the same was recalled, later on, the same view has been taken by the Additional Collector while passing the first order impugned dated 14.06.2022. He

¶10

further submits that the proceedings were decided against dead persons and that findings recorded in the order impugned are perverse and without any basis.

¶11

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha argued that though previous order was maintained, the Additional Collector, in the order impugned dated 14.06.2022, has clearly observed that after recalling the previous order dated 11.08.2017, the allottees were granted opportunity to lead evidence in support of their defence, but they had not led any evidence nor they did produce any authority, which could justify setting aside of the order dated 11.08.2017. They further submit that the possession of the land allotted to the petitioners was never given to them and there is existence of Islamiya School, old houses and Qabristan since prior to 1983 and the land was never vacant for agricultural purposes.

¶12

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Though, it is true that the order dated 11.08.2017 was exparte (although even appearance of the allottees was recorded in the said order) even if, it was recalled on 09.02.2021, no evidence was led by the petitioners to rebut the findings recorded in the order dated 11.08.2017 or to support their allotment/lease. Further the life of assami lease is admittedly five years which period expired in the year 1988. I have also perused the memo of revision, where apart from other submissions, a ground has been taken that in case some land is in unauthorized possession of some persons, same would fall in the category of "vacant land".

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is no evidence on record, whereby findings recorded by the authorities on merits can be disturbed. Further the petitioners, who themselves claim to be in possession (though aspect of possession has been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents), nature of possession after expiry of five years period has not been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. Insofar as death of certain allottees is concerned, the State cannot be blamed for the same as it is not expected from the State to know about the death of any party pending proceedings. The provisions and Principles of Code of Civil Procedure being admittedly applicable to the proceedings under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 by virtue of section 341 of the same, as per Order XXII Rule 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is the duty of the counsel to intimate the death of his client to the court and, for that purpose, contract between the deceased client and counsel is deemed to subsist and it is only thereafter responsibility/liability to

¶14

move substitution application can be shifted on the other side. In the present case, the revision was filed by the alive parties and even if, out of many, one or the other party died and the proceedings continued, the same would not have any adverse impact on the merits of the case i.e., nature of the proceedings, expiry of the lease after a period of five years and also merits regarding non- delivery of the possession, vis-a-vis nonavailability of the land for agricultural purposes, the same being surrounded and encumbered by Islamiya school, Qabristan and various houses of the persons.

¶15

For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the orders impugned.

¶16

The writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed .

¶17

Order Date :- 29.5.2023 Sazia

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SAZIA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagat Narayan and 18 Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jay Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nirankar Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others

Ram Chet Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

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

Rudal Vs Up Zila Adhkari and 8 Others

Kripa Shankar Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others