Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 459 (ALL)

Awadhesh Kumar v. State Of U. P.

2023-02-15

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Kamlesh Singh, Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents, Mr. Krishna Mohan Tripathi, Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5, Mr. L.K. Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Azad Rai, Counsel for respondent No.6, Land Management Committee. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.01.2015 passed by respondent No.3 as well as order dated 30.04.2022 passed by respondent No.2 in the proceeding under Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that lease was executed on 26.02.2011 in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 along with the others in respect to the plot No.145 and 150 situated in village-Hatwa Rampur, Manduki, Pargana-Kada, Tehsil-Sirathu, District-Kaushambi. Proceeding for cancellation of lease executed in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 was initiated on the basis of application moved by the petitioners on 13.08.2012 impleading the respondent Nos.4 and 5 only in the application. In the application, it has been mentioned by the petitioners that tree have been planted by the petitioners' ancestors over the plot in dispute. It is also mentioned in the application that lease holders respondent Nos.4 and 5 are not landless agricultural labourers, as such they were not entitled for the lease which was allowed in their favour. It was also mentioned that land was not vacant rather petitioners were in possession. The reports of the revenue authorities were submitted in the proceeding and thee Collector vide order dated 31.01.2015 rejected the application filed by petitioners for cancellation of the lease recording the finding of fact that lease holders were entitled for the lease as procedure for allotment has been followed i.e. duggi munadi etc and lease holders belong to the Scheduled Caste community, as such no interference is required against the allotment made by the authority. Against the order dated 31.01.2015, petitioners filed revision under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act which was also dismissed by the Revisional Court vide order dated 30.04.2022, hence this writ petition. 4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that lease was granted against the provisions of the Act and the rules prescribed. He further submitted that petitioners' ancestors have planted trees of different nature which was planted last more than 10 years and land was not vacant, as such allotment has been illegally made. 4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that lease was granted against the provisions of the Act and the rules prescribed. He further submitted that petitioners' ancestors have planted trees of different nature which was planted last more than 10 years and land was not vacant, as such allotment has been illegally made. He further placed reliance upon Section 56 (3) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as well as Section 57 (1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which are as under:- 56 Rights in trees. -........ (3) All trees in abadi or in any unoccupied land belonging to or held by any person immediately before the date of commencement of this Code shall continue to belong to such person and be held subject to any other law for the time being in force and to any rules made under this Code. (4) Subject to the provisions of section 57, all trees, brushwood, jungle or other natural product, wherever growing or planted, other than the trees referred to in subsection (1) to (3) shall, with effect from the date of commencement of this Code be deemed to be the property of the State Government. Explanation. -For the purposes of this section, and section 59, the expression unoccupied land' means the land in a village other than the land held by tenureholders. 57 Fruit bearing trees.-(1) Where before the commencement of this Code, any fruit bearing tree was planted by any person on either side of any public road or path or canal with the permission in writing of any revenue officer or any officer of the Forest or Public Works Department or Irrigation Department of the State Government, not below the rank of a Tahsildar or an Assistant Conservator of Forest or an Assistant Engineer, as the case may be, then, notwithstanding that such land vests in the State Government, such person and his legal representative shall be entitled to the fruits of such trees without payment of any charges whatsoever." 5. On the basis of the aforementioned provisions, Counsel for the petitioners submitted that impugned order is wholly illegal and the aforementioned provisions has not been considered while cancelling the petitioners' application for lease granted in favour of the contesting respondents. On the basis of the aforementioned provisions, Counsel for the petitioners submitted that impugned order is wholly illegal and the aforementioned provisions has not been considered while cancelling the petitioners' application for lease granted in favour of the contesting respondents. He further submitted that required formalities for granting of lease in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 has not been followed, as such the lease was liable to be cancelled, but the courts below has not applied their mind and rejected the application filed by the petitioners. He further submitted that Gram Pradhan, namely Suresh Chandra Chaudhary, made application dated 18.01.2013 in which the prescribed resolution for grant of lease has been made in favour of the respondent Nos.4 and 5, but the courts below having considered the same and rejected the application for cancellation of the lease filed by petitioner. He further submitted that respondent Nos.4 and 5 are having land of area 0.034 hectare, as such they cannot be treated as landless agricultural labourer and the lease cannot be granted in their favour. He further submitted that impugned orders have been passed arbitrarily, as such, the same are liable to be set aside and the lease executed in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 be cancelled. 6. On the other hand, Mr. L.K. Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. K.M. Tripathi, Counsel for the contesting respondent Nos.4 and 5 as well as Mr. Azad Rai, Counsel for the Land Management Committee submitted that lease was executed in year 2011 in accordance with law after following due procedure as prescribed under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, as such there is no need for cancelling the lease granted in accordance with law. He further submitted that proceeding for cancellation has been initiated by the private respondent who has no locus to challenge the lease granted in favour of the lease holders. They placed reliance upon the provisions contained under Section 57 (3) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which runs as follow: "57 Fruit bearing trees.-...... (3) The right conferred under this section shall be heritable but the person planting the fruit bearing tree or his heirs shall have no right on the corpus of such tree or in the land on which it stands." 7. They finally submitted that no interference is required against the impugned order. (3) The right conferred under this section shall be heritable but the person planting the fruit bearing tree or his heirs shall have no right on the corpus of such tree or in the land on which it stands." 7. They finally submitted that no interference is required against the impugned order. They further submitted that in cancellation application only two lease holders have been made party and rest of the lease holders have not impleaded as such lease application is not maintainable. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. There is no dispute about the fact that lease was executed in the year 2011 to the lease holders and the cancellation application has been filed by the private parties. There is also no dispute about the fact that courts below have concurrently rejected the petitioners' application for cancellation of lease as well as revison filed by the petitioners. 10. Additional Collector as well as Additional Commissioner have recorded finding of fact that lease was executed in favour of lease holder in accordance with rules the relevant portion of the judgment of Additional Commissioner (revisional Court) is as follows: Considering the finding of fact recorded by both the Courts as well as argument advanced by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Counsel for the Gaon Sabha to the effect that impugned orders have been passed in accordance with law, no interference is required against the impugned order. 11. Since the lease was granted in the year 2011 after following due procedure of law, as such cancellation proceeding cannot be initiated by the private parties. It is also material fact that gaon sabha as well as State has not initiated any proceeding for cancellation rather they are supporting the plea of the lease holders even before this Court also. 12. So far as filing of affidavit in the lease cancellation proceeding by villagers or Gram Pradhan that lease was not executed in accordance with rules can not be made basis for cancellation of lease of lease holder unless the proceeding for cancellation of lease under Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act or Section-128 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is initiated in accordance with law by State or Gaon Sabha. 13. 13. The argument advanced by leased Counsel for the petitioner on the basis of provisions contained in Section 56 (3) & 57 (1) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is misconceived as there is no conclusive proof regarding plantation of trees by petitioners or their ancestors and Section 57 (3) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides that person will have no right to the land. 14. It is settled law that stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding unless he satisfy the Court/Authority that he is person aggrieved. This Curt in the case reported in 2017 (134) RD 428 Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others has discussed the scope of person aggrieved in the proceeding under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A.& L. R.Act. Paragraph Nos.15 & 16 of the judgment are relevant which are as under: "15. Further, a "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised. 16. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of Mumbai, AIR 2008 SC 1289 , has observed that if a person claiming relief is not eligible as per requirement, then he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved." 15. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned orders. The writ petition is devoid of merit and dismissed accordingly.