Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3645 (ALL)

Bibi v. State of U. P. Thru' Secry.

2014-12-05

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2014
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. This Public Interest Litigation is instituted for the following prayer: - "a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing commanding the respondent no.2 and 3 to get vacate the possession of the State land (land of the village committee) from the illegal lease holder in pursuance of the order passed by the respondent no.3 dated 120.7.2014." 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent vide his order dated 10 July 2014 purported to have been passed under Rule 115-P of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952 has cancelled the lease of several lease holders and a direction has been issued to dispossess the lease holders. From the record it transpires that a complaint was made by the villagers in respect of illegal grant of the leases in favour of several persons in respect of plot no. 473. 3. The revenue Inspector made a spot inspection and submitted his report to the third respondent. After hearing all the concerned parties, the third respondent vide order dated 23 December 2005 cancelled all the leases of the lease holders. Aggrieved by the said order the lease holders filed a revision before the learned Commissioner, Bareilly Region, Bareilly which was allowed and the matter was remitted to the third respondent. From the record it appears that twice matter was remitted for reconsideration. Ultimately the third respondent vide order dated 10 July 2014, has cancelled the leases on the ground that over the plot No. 473, some persons namely Veer Singh, Pawan Kishore, Premwati and Moti Ram have constructed their houses, therefore, no land is available for the grant of fresh lease. He has, accordingly, passed an order for cancellation of the lease deeds and has also cancelled the lease of Veer Singh, Chandrsen and others. A consequential order for the demolition of the permanent constructions raised by Pawan Kishore and Nem Chandra has also been passed. 4. The petitioner seeks direction for the compliance of the order passed by the third respondent. 5. A consequential order for the demolition of the permanent constructions raised by Pawan Kishore and Nem Chandra has also been passed. 4. The petitioner seeks direction for the compliance of the order passed by the third respondent. 5. Having due regard to the facts of the case, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met in case direction is issued to the third and fourth respondent to take appropriate further steps in accordance with law, if the order of the third respondent dated 10 July 2014 has not been set aside/modified or stayed by the revisional court, with due notice to all the affected persons. The petition in Public Interest Litigation is finally disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.