Dismissed¶13

Rohit Kumar and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Jul 2024WRIC/14912/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Writ-C No. 14912 of 2024, decided 2.7.2024 by Ashutosh Srivastava, J.; neutral citation 2024:AHC:108188. Petitioners Rohit Kumar and 7 others vs State of U.P. and 3 others. Keywords: cancellation of Gram Sabha agricultural land leases; Section 128 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; revision under Section 210 dismissed; fresh allotment under Section 125; eligibility of landless allottees; Article 226 Constitution of India; writ petition dismissed, no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶13

Rohit Kumar and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 08.02.2024 of the Additional Commissioner, Ist, Prayagraj dismissing the revision and upholding the Collector, Kaushambi's order dated 25.10.2019 cancelling the petitioners' agricultural leases is legal, proper and correct, and whether it warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

The orders impugned are just and proper and do not warrant any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; the writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The Collector's order dated 25.10.2019 recorded categorical findings of fact that the petitioners were not eligible for grant of the leases and that the entire proceedings for allotment of the land were tainted with irregularities, setting aside the entire proceedings; the revisional authority upheld that order by its order dated 08.02.2024.

¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - C No. 14912 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, decided 2.7.2024 by Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava, J.) challenging the order dated 08.02.2024 of the Additional Commissioner, Ist, Prayagraj in Revision No. 01656 of 2019, whereby the revision was dismissed and the Collector, Kaushambi's order dated 25.10.2019 under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 cancelling agricultural leases granted to the petitioners by the S.D.O., Sirathu (following a Gram Sabha resolution to allot vacant land to 60 poor landless farmers) was upheld. The Court noted the Collector's categorical findings that the petitioners were not eligible for the leases and that the entire allotment proceedings were tainted with irregularities, held the impugned orders just and proper, found no ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:108188

¶2

Court No. - 50

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14912 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Rohit Kumar And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- Azad Rai,C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Azad Rai, learned counsel who has appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 4, the L.M.C. concerned.

¶7

The writ petition has been filed questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ist, Prayagraj/respondent no. 2 in Revision No. 01656 of 2019 (Rohit Kumar and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others) whereby and whereunder the revision has been dismissed and the order dated 25.10.2019 passed by the Collector Kaushambi under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 cancelling the leases of agricultural land in favour of the petitioners, has been upheld.

¶8

It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent no. 4, L.M.C. concerned passed a resolution to allot vacant land of the Gram Sabha to 60 poor landless farmers of the village including the petitioners. The Naib Tehsildar made enquiries and found only 35 persons to be eligible for grant of the agricultural leases and forwarded his recommendation to the S.D.O., Sirathu. The S.D.O., Sirathu granted the leases in favour of the petitioners and also put them in possession over the land of their respective leases. The names of the petitioners were also mutated over the plots. However, a complaint was lodged by one Rajesh Kumar son of Kallu and a Case No. 00542 of 2018 (Rajesh Kumar vs. Lallan and others) was registered. The petitioners filed their objections. The Collector, Kaushambi vide the order dated 25.10.2019 without examining the case of the petitioners and even without adverting to the objections raised proceeded to cancel the allotment and the leases granted in favour of the petitioners exercising powers under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The petitioners challenged the order dated 25.10.2019 in revision under Section

¶9

210 of the Code, 2006 before the Addl. Commissioner, respondent no. 2 which too has been dismissed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders are patently illegal inasmuch as the allotment of the land was made in favour of the petitioners after proper inquiry and the allotment was also approved and possession was delivered, there was absolutely no occasion to cancel the allotment and the leases.

¶11

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Staterespondents as also learned counsel for respondent no. 4, the L.M.C. concerned submits that none of the petitioners were found eligible for grant of the lease. The names of the petitioners find place at serial No. 14, 27, 34 and 35 as is evident from the order dated 25.10.2019 passed by the Collector, Kaushambi. They further submit that out of the 60 shortlisted persons, 35 persons were allotted land but subsequent inquiry has revealed that only 13 were landless allottees while 22 were not landless (including the petitioners herein) and some of them had already been granted leases earlier. The Collector having found gross irregularities in the allotment of the Agricultural leases has cancelled the entire allotment and ordered for fresh allotment proceedings to be initiated under Section 125 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The persons who had been found eligible for allotment under the order dated 25.10.2019 would be given preference in future allotment of land. The Additional Commissioner, Ist, Prayagraj Divison has found no illegality in the order of the Collector and has dismissed the revision. It is thus contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

I have heard, learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The Collector under the order dated 25.10.2019 has recorded categorical findings of fact that the petitioners were not eligible for grant of the leases and infact the entire proceedings for allotment of the land was tainted with irregularities and accordingly set aside the entire proceedings. The revisional authority has upheld the order dated 25.10.2019 by its order dated 08.02.2024.

¶13

The orders impugned are just and proper and do not warrant any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed . There shall however be no order as to costs.

¶14

Order Date :- 2.7.2024 Anjali

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rohit Kumar and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Kumar and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases