Dismissed¶29

Omwati Widow v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2025WRIC/41023/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Division Bench: Ajit Kumar & Swarupama Chaturvedi, JJ.), WRIT - C No. 41023 of 2025, decided 21.11.2025 - Omwati Widow v. State of U.P. & others: interpretation of Section 117(6) and its proviso, U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950; vesting of resumed land complete on 2015 resumption notification; proviso only enables re-investment in Gaon Sabha/local authority and cannot override main section; notice dated 06.11.2025 to vacate land upheld; related challenge in Writ - C No.35538 of 2024 has no stay; liberty to file reply within two weeks before respondent No.- 5 (Greater Noida).

What did the court decide?

Interference with the notice dated 6th November, 2025 declined; liberty granted to the petitioner to submit a reply to the notice before respondent No.- 5 within two weeks, which shall be disposed of in accordance with law.

Omwati Widow vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether, upon resumption of land by the State Government under sub-section (6) of Section 117 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 by notification, vesting stands completed with the notification itself, or whether a further declaration under the proviso is necessary to finalize/complete the resumption. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

Vesting of the land in question in the State Government stood completed with the notification of resumption made in the year 2015 itself; the petitioner's legal argument that a further declaration under the proviso was necessary was rejected.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

On a plain reading of Section 117(6), resumption operates by notification and the land automatically vests in the State Government; the proviso merely enables the State Government to re-invest/re-vest the resumed land in the Gaon Sabha or local authority from which it was resumed, and being a proviso it can never override the spirit of the main section (golden rule of interpretation).

¶22

Key takeaways

Since the writ petition challenging the resumption notification has no stay order operating therein, the notification would not in any manner get affected, and the notice to vacate the land and remove construction was naturally issued as a consequence to the notification.ratio¶27
The petitioner is at liberty to submit a reply to the notice dated 6th November, 2025 before the concerned competent authority, namely respondent No.- 5, within two weeks, and the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of notice dated 06.11.2025 issued consequent to resumption of land under Section 117(6) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. Held: (i) resumption under Section 117(6) operates by notification and the resumed land automatically vests in the State Government, the Gaon Sabha/local authority being entitled only to compensation; (ii) the proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 117 is only an enabling provision permitting the State Government to make a fresh declaration re-investing the resumed land in the same or another local authority/Gaon Sabha, and a proviso can never override the spirit of the main section; (iii) vesting stood completed with the notification made in 2015 itself; (iv) pendency of a challenge to the notification (Writ - C No.35538 of 2024) without any stay order does not affect the notification, and the notice to vacate the land and remove construction is consequential thereto. Interference declined; petitioner given liberty to submit a reply to the notice before respondent No.- 5 within two weeks, to be dealt with in accordance with law.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 41023 of 2025

Omwati Widow

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Somesh Khare
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Anjali Upadhya, C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 4

¶10

HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Somesh Khare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Anjali Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for the Greater Noida, namely respondent No.- 5.

¶12

By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the notice dated 6th November, 2025 issued to him chiefly on the ground that once the land has been resumed by the State Government in purported exercise of power under Section 117 (6) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 (herein after referred to as 'Act, 1950') and notification to that effect has come to be issued under sub-section (6) of Section 117 of the Act, 1950, a further declaration finalizing the resumption was necessary which did not take effect and hence the resumption proceeding remained incomplete. According to Mr. Khare, since proviso to sub section further provides for further declaration of resumption land non compliance thereof may not result in a resumption process getting completed. In another words, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the notification has taken place, vesting stands considered only after the declaration issued under the proviso and hence notice impugned in this petition is per se bad.

¶13

Per contra , it is argued by Ms. Anjali Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the respondent No.- 5 that notification of resumption of land had taken place in the year 2015 itself under the relevant provisions of erstwhile U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. She further argued that the said notification came to be challenged by petitioner vide writ petition being Writ - C No.35538 of 2024 but no interim order was passed therein and only response has been invited. It is thus submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that notice dated 6th November, 2025 was a result of vesting of the land in the State Government by virtue of resumption notified by the State Government qua the land in question.

¶14

Meeting the submissions on the legal aspect raised by Mr. Khare,

¶15

WRIC No. 41023 of 2025

¶16

¶17

learned counsel for the petitioner, Miss Upadhyaya submitted before the Court that proviso only qualifies the main clause of sub-section (6) of Section 117 of the Act, 1950 as an enabling provision to meet an eventuality where the State Government decides to re-invest the land in the Gaon Sabha or in the local authority from which the land had been resumed. She argues that proviso does not in any manner provides or makes any provision to qualify a vesting that has already taken place under Section 117(6) of the Act, 1950. However, she submits that if petitioner wants to appear before the authority to reply to the show cause notice dated 6th November, 2025, he may avail such remedy.

¶18

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, insofar as the legal aspect is concerned regarding interpretation to be made of the proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 117 of the Act, 1950, in order to appreciate this legal aspect of the matter, we reproduce Section 117(6) of the Act, 1950 and also proviso hereunder:

¶19

"117.(6)- The State Government may at any time, [by general or special order to be published in the manner prescribed] [Substituted by U.P. Act No. 35 of 1976.], amend or cancel any [declaration, notification or order] [Substituted by U.P. Act No. 30 of 1975.] made in respect of any of the things aforesaid, whether generally or in the case of any Gaon Sabha or other local authority and resume such thing and whenever the State Government so resumes any such things, the Gaon Sabha or other local authority, as the case may be, shall be entitled to receive and be paid compensation on account only of the development, if any, effected by it in or over that things :

¶20

Provided that the State Government may after such resumption make a fresh declaration under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) vesting the thing resumed in the same or any other local authority (including a Gaon Sabha), and the provisions of sub-sections (3), (4) and (5), as the case may be, shall mutatis mutandis, apply to such declaration."

¶21

Upon a careful reading of provisions as contained under Section 117 (6) of Act, 1950, it is clearly found that the legislature empowered State Government to resume the land either from the Goan Sabha or local authority and the resumption is by way of notification that they are resuming the land and all such land would automatically stand vested in the State Government, and the Gaon Sabha and local authority would only be entitled to compensation.

¶22

A further reading of the proviso discloses that the legislature further enabled to State Government to re-vest the land in such local body or gaon sabha from which it had been resumed. It is admitted rule of interpretation that the provisions have to be interpreted in the plain and simple language in which they are couched. It is also a golden rule of interpretation that proviso to main section can never override the spirit of the main section. Applying this rule of interpretation we find that plain and simple language of the proviso only provides for the State

¶23

WRIC No. 41023 of 2025

¶24

¶25

Government to reinvest the land in the local authority or the gaon sabha as the case may be.

¶26

Accordingly, we are not impressed by the legal argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and hence according to us, vesting of the land in question in the State Government has stood completed with the notification thereof made in the year 2015 itself.

¶27

We are also informed here that a writ petition has been filed challenging the notification but there is no stay order operating therein, therefore, the notification would not in any manner get affected and the notice, therefore, in respect thereof to vacate the land and remove construction standing upon the said land was naturally issued as a consequence to the notification.

¶28

However, it is always open for a party who has been served with a notice to submit reply to the same and here we agree with the submission advanced by Ms. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 and in the event petitioner if wants to submit his reply to the notice, he may have such liberty.

¶29

Accordingly, while we decline to interfere with the notice dated 6th November, 2025, we still provide that in the event petitioner moves a reply to the notice dated 6th November, 2025 before the concerned competent authority namely respondent No.- 5 within two weeks from today, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law.

¶30

(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)

¶31

November 21, 2025 Atmesh

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Omwati Widow v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omwati Widow 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

Similar cases

M/S Maini Saxena Transport Pvt. Ltd. vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Pappu @ Pappu Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Kaveri Technobuild Pvt. Ltd. vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Balikaran vs Poorvanchal Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited and 3 Others

Tushar Gupta vs Union of India and 8 Others

Rajesh Mani Tripathi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others