Ram Sharan Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Heard Sri Ravindra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey for Gram Sabha.

¶11

All the petitions are being heard and decided together as they assail common orders passed by Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), District Unnao dated 25.1.2020 as well as order dated 24.12.2024 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow.

¶12

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the process for allotment of land to landless residents of Village Chamrauli, Pargana Jalotar Ajgain, Tehsil Hasanganj, District Unnao was undertaken by concerned Land Management Committee and after following the procedure one biswa of land was allotted to all the petitioners, who were poor and landless persons for the purpose of house construction on 30.1.1997 and 30.11.1999 out of entire gata No.204 M measuring an area of 0.013 hectare. It has further been stated that prior to allotment entire procedure was duly followed where reports of Lekhpal, Revenue Inspector and Naib Tehsildar were obtained and public notice was also issued. The resolution of Land Management Committee was also approved by the Sub Divisional Officer, Hasanganj, Unnao on 30.1.1997 and allotment map was also prepared.

¶13

It has further been stated that after aforesaid lease was granted to the petitioners, there was a change in the constitution of the Land Management Committee of the said Village and accordingly it is for the aforesaid reason that on certain complaints steps were initiated for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the petitioners. It has been submitted that despite granting lease in the year 1997-98 the actual physical possession of the said property was never given to the petitioners who accordingly have not built house.

¶14

In this background the petitioners were given show cause notice on 16.7.2013 stating that on the land which has been allotted constructions

¶15

WRIC No. 9905 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

have been made contrary to terms of the lease.

¶18

The petitioners on receipt of the notice dated 16.7.2013 submitted their reply on 19.9.2015 denying the allegations levelled against them and also specifically stating that possession of the land had not been given to the petitioners till date and consequently the allotment could not have been cancelled on the ground hat the petitioners had been unable to construct the house on the said land. After receipt of the said reply the respondents proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 25.1.2020 and cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioners.

¶19

A perusal of the impugned order passed by Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) would indicate that he has duly taken into consideration the fact that the petitioners had not been given possession of the said land. He has further recorded the fact that there was some confusion with regard to exact plot number allotted to the petitioners as well as its location which was the reason for which the possession of the plot was not given to the petitioners but instead of dealing with the submissions and objections raised by the petitioners merely proceeded to accept the arguments of the State to the effect that the petitioners had not constructed house over the said land within the prescribed period and more than thirteen years have lapsed and accordingly for the said reason has cancelled their allotments.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is the conduct of the respondents themselves which is responsible for the fact that the petitioners had not been able to construct any house on the said land. It was stated that it is the case of the petitioners that actual physical possession was never handed over to them due to which they were unable to make any construction over the said land and the respondents have compounded their own fault by attempting to cancel the lease given in favour of the petitioners leveling allegations agaisnt the petitioners that the petitioners are responsible for not constructing any house over the said land and accordingly submits that the respondents cannot be permitted to take benefit of their own faults where firstly they themselves are responsible for not handing over the physical possession of the leased land and secondly they have made that reason the very basis for cancellation of the leases.

¶21

Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition. He submits that during the present proceedings the original record was also summoned by this Court and even written instructions have been received by learned Standing counsel from which it is evident that actual physical possession of the leased plots were not handed over over to the petitioners. Once it is clear that actual physical possession was never handed over to the petitioners then the question of construction over the said plots does not arise. Accordingly, the show cause notice and the subsequent proceedings were absolutely illegal, arbitrary and it is not perceptible as to how the petitioners could have constructed houses over a piece of land the possession of which was never given by the State themselves to the petitioners.

¶22

Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the entire exercise was an exercise in futility in as much as it is the respondent themselves who are responsible for the current situation. Accordingly,

¶23

WRIC No. 9905 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

the orders dated 25.1.2020 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), District Unnao as well as order dated 24.12.2024 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow being illegal and arbitrary are set aside.

¶26

This Court further directs the respondents to hand over the actual physical possession of the plots allotted to the petitioners on 30.1.1997 and 30.11.1999 forthwith to all the petitioners.

¶27

Let such an exercise be conducted with expedition, say within next two months, in accordance with law.

¶28

The writ petitions, thus stand allowed .

¶29

(Alok Mathur,J.)

¶30

October 29, 2025 A. Verma

¶31

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Sharan Kushwaha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sharan Kushwaha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sunil Dutt Pandey Vs the Court of Learned Settlement Officer of Consolidation Pratham, Barabanki and Another

Village Panchayat Gaura Tikari Pargana Aldeymau, Sultanpur Thru. Village Pradhan Vs Tehsildar, Tehsil Kadipur, Sultanpur and Others

Akbar Khan Vs Additional Commissioner Judicial, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and 5 Others

Gyan Shankar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko. and Ors.

Sukh Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Ram Karan Chaube Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 2 Others