Dismissed¶¶21

Krishn Dev Upadhyay v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2025WRIC/423/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bhoodan Adhinium; Bhoodan Samiti lease; patta cancellation; pattas of prosperous farmers; eligibility of Bhoodan lessee; date of execution of patta as reference date; Khatauni evidence relating to subsequent period; burden of proof on applicant; no clear evidence led; order dated 26.11.2024 upheld; no palpable error; Article 226 discretionary jurisdiction; writ petition dismissed; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; WRIT - C No. - 423 of 2025; Jaspreet Singh, J.; Krishn Dev Upadhyay v. State of U.P.; neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:3077.

What did the court decide?

Without a clear date of execution of the patta serving as a reference date, the contention that the private respondents were prosperous farmers could not be examined or substantiated. ¶¶18

Krishn Dev Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the private respondents, alleged to be prosperous farmers possessing large ancestral properties, were ineligible to receive the Bhoodan Samiti lease, warranting cancellation of their pattas. +1 more

¶¶13

Court's answer

Without a clear date of execution of the patta serving as a reference date, the contention that the private respondents were prosperous farmers could not be examined or substantiated.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

The validity of the patta is to be adjudged on the basis of, and on, the date when it was made; the Khataunis furnished by the petitioner related to a period subsequent to the alleged date of execution and therefore could not establish that the properties existed when the patta was granted.

¶¶18

Key takeaways

The burden of proving ineligibility lay on the petitioner, who had initiated the proceedings, and despite having been afforded opportunities he led no clear evidence by which his contentions could be proved; consequently it could not be said the land was available with the private respondent on the date of execution of the patta.ratio¶¶19
As the petitioner failed to establish his basic case, no palpable error was found in the order dated 26.11.2024 warranting interference by the Court in exercise of its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (WRIT - C No. - 423 of 2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:3077), Jaspreet Singh, J., decided 17.1.2025. The petitioner challenged, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 26.11.2024 of respondent no.2 rejecting his petition for cancellation of the pattas/lease granted by the Bhoodan Samiti to the private respondents under the Bhoodan Adhinium, contending that the lessees were prosperous farmers with large ancestral properties and hence ineligible for Bhoodan land, and that the rejection was arbitrary and mechanical. Held: (i) eligibility under the Bhoodan grant falls to be judged as on the date of execution of the patta; the petition did not disclose that date, so the plea of prosperity could not be measured against any reference date; (ii) the Khataunis relied upon pertained to a period subsequent to the alleged patta date and could not show the properties existed when the patta was granted; (iii) the burden of proving ineligibility lay on the petitioner as initiator and, despite opportunities, he led no clear evidence; (iv) accordingly there was no palpable error in the impugned order warranting writ interference. Petition dismissed.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3077

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 423 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Krishn Dev Upadhyay

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow And Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Pratap Singh,Abdul Raheem Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶7

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶9

Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel.

¶10

Shri Mohan Singh, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.5.

¶11

In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondent Nos.3 and 4 is dispensed with.

¶12

Under challenge is the order dated 26.11.2024 passed by respondent no.2 whereby a petition preferred by the petitioner seeking cancellation of a lease granted in favour of the private respondent under the Bhoodan Adhinium has been rejected.

¶13

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the private respondents are prosperous farmers. They were not eligible to get any land on lease from the Bhoodan Samiti. The petitioner in the aforesaid context, has filed a petition seeking cancellation of their pattas on the aforesaid ground and in support thereof, has filed a Khatauni which finds mention at page 14 of the paper book which is impugned order dated 26.11.2024.

¶14

It is further urged that despite having brought ample material on record to substantiate

¶15

that the private respondents were not eligible for the said lease, the same has not been appropriately considered and the impugned order suffers from the vice of being arbitrary and having been passed in mechanical exercise of power, is liable to be set aside.

¶16

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of the material on record including the primary submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the private respondents are prosperous farmers having large number of ancestral properties, some of which may have also been sold in part and they are sufficiently possessed with material possessions and for the said reason, they were not eligible to get the lease.

¶17

If the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are examined in light of the material placed on record, it would indicate that the petition filed by the petitioner does not clearly indicate as to the date on which the patta was executed by the Bhoodan Samiti in favour of the private respondents.

¶18

In absence of a clear date, merely to suggest that the private respondents were prosperous farmers, cannot be seen unless any reference date is given. In so far as the evidence which has been furnished and as recorded in the impugned order is concerned, it would also indicate that they are all Khataunis relating to a period subsequent allegedly from the date on which date the patta was executed by the Bhoodan Samiti. The validity of the patta is to be adjudged on the basis and on the date when the same is made. In absence of any clear date, it cannot be ascertained for sure that in light of the Khataunis filed by the petitioner that all that such properties existed at the time when the patta was given. The petitioner, who was the person who had initiated the proceedings, the

¶19

burden was on him to have proved the same and despite having been afforded opportunities, no clear evidence was led by which his contentions could be proved. The Khataunis which had been referred, were placed on record but in absence of any clear date of the patta, it cannot be said that the said land was available with the private respondent on the date of the execution of the patta.

¶20

11 Where the petitioner has been unable to establish his basic care and it has been made the ground for rejecting the case of the petitioner, this Court does not find that there is any palpable error in the order dated 26.11.2024, for this court to intervene in exercise of its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶21

For the aforesaid reasons,the petition stands dismissed.

¶22

Order Date :- 17.1.2025

¶23

Shukla

¶24

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

Krishn Dev Upadhyay v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishn Dev Upadhyay v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., 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

Brahma Vs Man Singh

Pinki Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Jarrar Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Jasbant Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy, Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Smt. Kumud Saxena and others vs Shri Rakesh Saxena and Anr.

Seth Radheshyam Memorial Trust, Lko. Thru. Its Trusty /Chairman Prateek Jindal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and 3 Others