Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 42 (UTT)

Satey Singh Bachan Singh v. State Of Uttaranchal

2001-03-28

M.C.JAIN, P.C.VERMA

body2001
JUDGMENT P. C. Verma and M. C. Jain, JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G. 2. A lease had been granted in favour of the petitioner by the U. P. Government which was to expire on 31st March. 2001. The lease was renewed for another ten years by order dated 1.8.2000 though the earlier lease period had not lapsed. The petitioner submits that application for renewal of the lease, as per rules, was required to be made before six months from the date of expiry of the lease. The lease granted in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled by an order dated 25.1.2001 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Collector on two grounds. Firstly, the order of the Collector was passed without affording him opportunity of hearing and secondly, the Collector could not undo what was done by delegator. So far as the first ground is concerned, the renewal of lease has to take effect from 1st of (sic). We do not find any force in it. The petitioner was not entitled to opportunity of being heard in view of law laid in State of U. P. and another v. Girish Bihari and Ors.. (1977) 4 SCC 362. So far as the second ground is concerned, we find considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner. He (Collector) was delegatee of the State Government and could not have un-done what was done by the delegator. 4. The learned Advocate General states that the State of Utlaranchal has taken a decision on 12.1.2001 that no renewal of lease shall lake place after expiry of the period of lease. However, it is a fact that renewal of lease granted by the State Government has been cancelled by the Collector of Tehri Garhwal (delegatee). 5. The area for which the lease has been granted and renewed was to fall in the State of Uttaranchal and a Bill for reorganisation of the State was pending consideration of the Parliament. The Bill was passed on 1.8.2000 and thereafter it received the assent of the President. 5. The area for which the lease has been granted and renewed was to fall in the State of Uttaranchal and a Bill for reorganisation of the State was pending consideration of the Parliament. The Bill was passed on 1.8.2000 and thereafter it received the assent of the President. In all fairness, the State Government of U. P. should not have undertaken the exercise for renewal of the lease of the petitioner relating to an area which was to fall in the State of Uttaranchal to be created on the enforcement of U. P. Reorganisation Act, 2000. 6. In view of the fact that the delegatee has cancelled the renewal of the lease made by the detegator, we set aside the order dated 25.1.2001 passed by him (respondent No. 2). However, it is left open to the State Government to pass appropriate order in relation to the renewal of the lease of the petitioner as it thinks fit and proper and in accordance with law.