Rajjan Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:52223

Court No. - 8

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6455 of 2024 Petitioner :- Rajjan Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Jauhari,Sonika Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of Gaon Sabharespondent no. 7.

¶5

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the order dated 30th May, 2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed, as a result, the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Lucknow dated 20th November, 2019 has been affirmed.

¶6

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in respect of the disputed property in question, the father of the petitioner had been in possession and after his death, the petitioner was in continuous possession.

¶7

At a later stage, when the predecessors of the private respondent nos. 4 to 6 namely Maiku along with his hench men attempted to dispossess the petitioner, it is at that point of time, it revealed that Maiku had some lease in his favour, however, upon investigation, the petitioner became aware that Sri Maiku not only obtained the lease of the property in question but he has also obtained the lease of adjoining plots also by giving different parentage and as such the acquisition of land by Maiku was fraudulent.

¶8

It is thereafter that the petitioner moved an application under Section 198 of the for cancellation of the lease which has been dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate and the revision preferred by the Additional Commissioner had also been dismissed.

¶9

The further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the two courts while rejecting the plea of the petitioner have invoked the provisions of limitation, however, it is urged that the same could not come in the way of the petitioner as in terms of Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation

¶10

could only commence once the petitioner became aware of the fraud and this aspect has not been considered by the two courts. In such circumstances, it is alleged that the actions of Maiku are fraudulent in nature, accordingly, the limitation should not have been taken as a ground to non-suit the petitioner, hence, the impugned orders are bad.

¶11

Having considered the aforesaid submissions, a specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what is the right of the petitioner or his father while occupying the property in question. He has candidly submitted that the nature of possession of his father as well as that of the petitioner were in their own rights, however, there is neither any lease nor any authority to occupy the land in their favour.

¶12

In this view of the matter where the petitioner himself did not have any right over the land in question which necessarily belongs to the Stat/Gaon Sabha being recorded as 'Usar' land in the revenue records, hence, the submission to the effect that the petitioner has been dispossessed that could have been a cause of action to seek possession in accordance with law if he had been unlawfully dispossessed but it could not give the cause of action to cancel the lease of another third party. It may be that the lease in favour of the said third party may also be irregular but that is for the State and the Gaon Sabha to look into. Nevetheless, it does not permit the petitioner who himself does not have any better right to agitate the same as he also fell in the category of unauthorized occupant.

¶13

As far as the plea of limitation is concerned that being mixed question of law and fact, it cannot be said that the limitation would not apply in terms of Section 17 as the fraud which is said to have occurred has to be established and in light of the proviso appended to Section 17, the material brought on record by the petitioner does not substantiate the aforesaid plea.

¶14

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. It it also borne out from the record that the petitioner and the private respondents have filed various FIRs against each other which is also engaging the attention of the appropriate court and needless to say that since the State is a party, it is also required to see if any land of the State has been usurped by a third party by resorting to fraud, in case if it is so, it is expected that the State shall take appropriate action thereof, however, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition at the behest of the petitioner which is accordingly dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 31.7.2024/Asheesh

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajjan Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajjan Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rooplal Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi, and 3 Others

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Govind Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Secrt. Lko. and 6 Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Lucknow and Others

Girija Dayal vs Deputy Director of Consolidation/Addl. District Magistrate F and R and Another

Anil Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.