Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1186 (ALL)

VIRENDRA PRASAD v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-05-10

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2018
JUDGMENT : Salil Kumar Rai, J. Heard Shri M.P.Yadav, counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pranesh Kumar Mishra holding brief of Shri T.K.Mishra appearing for respondent no.4. 2. The petitioner was granted lease on recommendation of the concerned Land Management Committee. Subsequently, the respondent no. 4 filed an application before the Collector, Allahabad stating that the petitioner was not eligible for grant of lease and therefore, prayed that the lease granted to the petitioner be cancelled. It appears from the records that on the said application Case No. 59/1999-2000 was registered under Rule 115-P of the U.P Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules, 1952'). It also appears from the record that in the aforesaid case, the Additional Collector (F&R), Allahabad called for a report from the concerned Tehsildar who submitted a report stating that the petitioner and certain other persons who were granted lease were not eligible for the same and irregularities had been committed by the Gaon Sabha in granting lease to the petitioner as well as certain other persons. Relying on the aforesaid report, the Additional Collector (F&R), Allahabad by his order dated 1.5.2000 cancelled the lease granted to the petitioner. 3. Aggrieved by the order dated 1.5.2000 passed by Additional Collector (F&R), Allahabad, the petitioner filed a revision under section 333 of the Uttar Pradesh Zadmindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950') which was numbered as Revision No. 348/82 of 2003 and was allowed by the Additional Commissioner(II), Allahabad Division, Allahabad vide his order dated 18.6.2003 on the ground that the order dated 1.5.2000 was passed by the Additional Collector (F&R), Allahabad without serving any show cause notice on the petitioner and without giving him any opportunity of hearing. Against the order dated 18.6.2003 passed by the Additional Commissioner(II), the respondent no. 4 filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, U.P Allahabad which was numbered as Revision No.64 of 2002-2003. The Board of Revenue, U.P Allahabad vide order dated 30.3.2005 set aside the order dated 18.6.2003 of the Additional Commissioner. Against the order dated 18.6.2003 passed by the Additional Commissioner(II), the respondent no. 4 filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, U.P Allahabad which was numbered as Revision No.64 of 2002-2003. The Board of Revenue, U.P Allahabad vide order dated 30.3.2005 set aside the order dated 18.6.2003 of the Additional Commissioner. However, in its order dated 30.03.2005, the Board of Revenue did not consider and did not set side the finding recorded by the Additional Commissioner in his order dated 18.6.2003 that the petitioner was not served any show cause notice and was not granted any opportunity of hearing in Case No. 59/1999-2000 and the order passed by the Additional Collector was in violation of principles of natural justice. The orders dated 30.3.2005 passed by the Board of Revenue and 1.5.2000 passed by Additional Collector have been challenged in the present writ petition. 4. It is evident from the records annexed with the writ petition that while allowing Revision No. 348/82 of 2003, the Additional Commissioner had recorded a specific finding in his order dated 18.6.2003 that no show cause notice was served on the petitioner and the petitioner was not given any opportunity to appear and to produce evidence in his defence in Case No. 59/1999-20000 decided by the Additional Collector. It is also evident from a perusal of the order dated 30.3.2005 passed by the Board of Revenue that the aforesaid order dated 18.6.2003 passed by the Additional Commissioner has been set aside without recording any finding regarding violation of the principles of natural justice by the Additional Collector in Case No. 59/1999-2000. A perusal of Section 198(5) of the Act, 1950 shows that a show cause notice is required to be served to the lessee or his legal representative before passing any order of cancellation of lease. In the circumstances, the order dated 1.5.2000 passed by the Additional Collector was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and the aforesaid order as well as consequential order dated 30.3.2005 passed by the Board of Revenue are liable to set aside and are hereby set aside so far as they relate to the petitioner. 5. The matter is pending in this Court since 2005 and the dispute pertains to grant of lease in 1993. 5. The matter is pending in this Court since 2005 and the dispute pertains to grant of lease in 1993. It would serve no useful purpose by remanding back the matter to the Board of Revenue, Allahabad to record a finding regarding observance of principles of natural justice by the Collector before passing the order dated 1.5.2000. As the only issue on which the Additional Commissioner had set aside the order dated 1.5.2000 passed by the Additional Collector was violation of principles of natural justice before passing the order dated 1.5.2000, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Vipulbhai Mansinghbhai Chaudhary Vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 13 SCC 51 the matter is remanded back to the Additional Collector (F&R), Allahabad to pass fresh orders in Case No.59/1999-2000 within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him after giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. The standing counsel shall send a copy of this order to the Collector, Allahabad who shall ensure that the case is decided by the Additional Collector (F&R), Allahabad within the period fixed by this Court. 6. A copy of this order shall be given to the standing counsel free of cost. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed.