Manoj Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2025WRIC/15642/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 198(4) U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act; Section 198(6) seven-year limitation; Section 33/39 U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901; lease cancellation; expunging of names from revenue records; recording name of Gaon Sabha; Collector Mainpuri; Revisional Court failure to exercise jurisdiction; excess of jurisdiction; writ petition allowed. Case: WRIT - C No. 15642 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, decided 24.7.2025 by Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J. Counsel: Dileep Singh Yadav and Parvez Alam for petitioners; Avinash Chandra Srivastava, C.S.C. and Hari Narayan Singh for respondents.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; the order of the Collector, Mainpuri dated 27.02.2015 and the Revisional Court's order dated 03.10.2024 are set aside. ¶¶15

Manoj Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; the order of the Collector, Mainpuri dated 27.02.2015 and the Revisional Court's order dated 03.10.2024 are set aside.

¶¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the Collector, Mainpuri, while exercising powers under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, could pass an order directing initiation of proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 for expunging the petitioners' names from revenue records and recording the name of Gaon Sabha, instead of deciding the cancellation application. +2 more

¶¶12

Court's answer

An order directing initiation of proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 cannot be passed by the Collector while exercising power under Section 198(4).

¶¶13

Ratio / Principle

The Collector, Mainpuri exceeded his jurisdiction by ordering expunging of the petitioners' names without assigning any reason and by cancelling the lease granted in favour of the petitioners' predecessors-in-interest.

¶¶13

Key takeaways

The Revisional Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it to rectify the mistake of the Collector, Mainpuri.ratio¶¶14
Both the order of the Collector, Mainpuri dated 27.02.2015 and the order of the Revisional Court dated 03.10.2024 are contrary to the provisions of Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, and both are set aside.ratio¶¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 34), Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J. — WRIT - C No. 15642 of 2025, decided 24.7.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:121951). Petitioners claimed allotment of land to their predecessors-in-interest in 1969; in 2011 one Sanjay Singh and others sought cancellation of the lease by an application under Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. By order dated 27.02.2015 the Collector, Mainpuri held that the lease could not be cancelled, but instead directed initiation of proceedings under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 for expunging the petitioners' names from revenue records and recording the name of Gaon Sabha; the Revisional Court rejected the petitioners' revision by order dated 03.10.2024. Holding that such an order cannot be passed by the Collector while exercising power under Section 198(4), that the Collector exceeded jurisdiction by ordering expunging without assigning any reason, and that the Revisional Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction to rectify the Collector's mistake, the Court set aside both orders and allowed the writ petition.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121951

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15642 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dileep Singh Yadav,Parvez Alam Counsel for Respondent :- Avinash Chandra Srivastava,C.S.C.,Hari Narayan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

Petitioners before this Court claim that their predecessors interest were allotted land in question in the year 1969. Cancellation proceedings were initiated by one Sanjay Singh and others in the year 2011 by filing an application under Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

¶7

The Collector, Mainpuri by order dated 27.02.2015 had held in proceedings under Section 198(4) that the lease cannot be cancelled, but proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 be initiated and the name of the petitioners be expunged from the revenue records.

¶8

Aggrieved by the said order, petitioners had filed a revision which has been rejected by the order impugned dated 03.10.2024.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the period of limitation for initiating the proceedings under Section 198(4) has been mentioned in Section 198(6) which is seven years. According to him, it was after 42 years that cancellation proceedings were initiated for cancelling the lease, which was granted in favour of their predecessors. He further contends that in proceedings under Section 198(4), the Collector should not order for initiating proceedings under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the writ petition.

¶11

I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶12

From perusal of order passed by the Collector, Mainpuri, it appears that in the proceedings initiated under Section 198(4), Collector has not taken any decision by rejecting or allowing the said application, instead he had directed for initiating proceedings under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 for expunging the name of petitioners from the revenue records and recording the name of Gaon Sabha.

¶13

This type of order cannot be passed by Collector while exercising power under Section 198(4). The Collector, Mainpuri has exceeded the jurisdiction by ordering for expunging the name of petitioners without assigning any reason, and cancelling the lease granted in favour of the predecessor interest of the petitioners.

¶14

Revisional Court had miserably failed to exercise jurisdiction which is vested in it by rectifying the mistake of the Collector, Mainpuri. Both the orders are totally against the provisions of law under Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as well as Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Both the orders are hereby set aside.

¶15

Writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed .

¶16

Order Date :- 24.7.2025

¶17

SK Goswami

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 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