Single judge of the Uttarakhand High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of asami patta. The court held that petitioners lacked a subsisting valid lease, preventing judicial scrutiny, and affirmed that admitting Section 202 proceedings negated their claimed rights.
Writ petition dismissed. No order as to cost.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 763 of 2005
Hanif & Ors.
...….……Petitioners
Versus
State and Anr. ………. Respondents
Present: Mr. Prabhat Bohra, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Deputy Advocate General along with Mr. Tarun Lakhera, Brief Holder for the State.
Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)
There is a word “Asami”, has been defined in sub Section (3) of Section 129 which is a class of tenure-holders under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R Act, the Act under Section 133 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R Act it classifies the “asamies” into the subclassifications given under sub Sections to Section 133.
2
for a period exceeding five years, meaning thereby the proviso and the principal section itself, which was substituted by Notification dated 01.11.1975, creates a bar that no lease could be made by the Land Management Committee for a period beyond 5 years as contemplated in its lease making powers.
3
itself. The hypothesis of permissive possession cannot be stretched to the extent of infinity because when the law itself stipulates a time of a right created by a document simultaneously and accepted by the beneficiary, it also terminates the life of permissive possession, hence this plea too is not acceptable by this Court.
4
creation of the State and there was subsequent transfer, a reference was made for taking an action under Section 202. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was a direction for taking an action under Section 202 and no action has been taken yet and if these are legal position then action 202 of provision of U.P.Z.A. & L.R Act should be taken.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 25.07.2017
Mahinder/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether affirmation of rights as asami lease holders is sustainable where the lease may have expired under Rule 176-A.
Whether the High Court can supervise cancellation proceedings under Article 227 when the petitioner lacks a subsisting valid patta.
Whether admitting a proceeding under Section 202 negates the petitioners' claim to retain asami patta rights.
6 provisions across 3 enactments
Hanif & Ors.
State and Anr.
Sharad Kumar Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
