Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 451 (ALL)

Razia v. Board of Revenue

2024-02-12

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2024
JUDGMENT Chandra Kumar Rai, J. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Satyendra Nath Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents and Mr. Deepak Gaur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Gram Sabha. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.12.1990, petitioner along with 37 others were granted lease in respect to plot in dispute situated in Village- Panari, Pargana and Tehsil- Lalitpur, District- Lalitpur. Out of 38 lease only 14 lease were approved in which petitioner's lease was also approved. On the basis of private complaint proceedings under Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act were initiated and registered before Additional District Magistrate Lalitpur and petitioner's case was registered as Case No. 180/91-92 (State v. Rajia along with 13 others), case against respective leaseholders. Respondent No. 3/ Additional District Magistrate heard all the 14 cases for cancellation of lease and vide order dated 28.12.1992 lease of all the 14 lease holders including petitioner was cancelled. Petitioner and 13 others have filed their revision under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act before Commissioner and the revision filed by petitioner was registered as Revision No. 23/272 of 1992-93. Respondent No.2/ Additional Commissioner vide order dated 13.03.1994 made reference before respondent no.1/ Board of Revenue to set aside the order dated 28.12.1992 so far as it relates to petitioner and 7 other lease holders but in respect to remaining lease holders/ revisionist, the revisions were dismissed. Respondent No.1/ Board of Revenue heard the revisions on the basis of reference sent by respondent no.2 and vide order dated 30.04.1996 rejected the reference as well as dismissed the revision affirming the order dated 28.12.1992 passed by respondent no.3. Review petition filed by petitioner was also rejected by respondent no.1/ Board of Revenue vide order dated 03.02.2005, hence this writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "(i) issue writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.12.92, 30.04.96 and 3.2.2005 passed by Respondent no. 3 and 1 respectively (Annexure no.8, 10 and 11). (ii) issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents not to reject the petitioner from the land in dispute in persuance of the impugned orders." 3. 3 and 1 respectively (Annexure no.8, 10 and 11). (ii) issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents not to reject the petitioner from the land in dispute in persuance of the impugned orders." 3. This Court has entertained the writ petition on 23.09.2005 & granted interim order on 23.09.2005 which is as under:- "Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party nos. 1 to 3 and Sri. Anuj Kumar Advocate Standing Counsel (Gaon Sabha) has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party nos. 4 and 5. They pray for and are granted six weeks time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks time thereafter is granted to file rejoinder affidavit to learned Counsel for petitioner. Till further orders of the Court, petitioners shall not be ejected from the land allotted to her. 29.03.2005 Signature/-" 4. In pursuance of the order dated 29.03.2005, Gaon Sabha has filed counter affidavit and petitioner has filed her rejoinder affidavit. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that agricultural lease were granted in favour of petitioner along with others in the year 1990 after following the due procedure as prescribed under the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and the rules framed thereunder. He further submitted that petitioner's lease was approved also along with 13 others. He further submitted that private complaint has been filed in respect to the lease executed in favour of the petitioner along with others and the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act have been registered and the lease of the petitioner along with 13 others have been cancelled in arbitrary manner vide order dated 28.12.1992. He further submitted that petitioner along with others challenged the order dated 28.12.1992 passed by Additional District Magistrate in revision before the Commissioner. He further submitted that Additional Commissioner after considering the case of respective lease holders, has recorded the finding of fact that the petitioner was eligible for allotment at the relevant point of time as such the lease of the petitioner should be affirmed. He submitted that reference was sent before the Board of Revenue but Board of Revenue has illegally rejected the reference and affirmed the order of Additional District Magistrate by which lease were cancelled without considering the case that case of all the lease holders are separate and same principle cannot be applied for all the lease holders. He submitted that reference was sent before the Board of Revenue but Board of Revenue has illegally rejected the reference and affirmed the order of Additional District Magistrate by which lease were cancelled without considering the case that case of all the lease holders are separate and same principle cannot be applied for all the lease holders. He submitted that lease granted in favour of the petitioner in the year 1990 be affirmed as petitioner was granted lease in accordance with law and petitioner is still continuing in possession over the same in view of the interim order granted by this Court at the time of entertaining the instant petition in the year 2005. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment of the this Court in Pyare Lal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mainpuri, 2005 (1) AWC 446 as well as full bench judgment of Board of Revenue reported in 1992 R.D. (Hindi) 51 Dalal Singh & others v. Bhumi Prabhandhak Samiti in support of his argument. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Satyendra Nath Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents and Mr. Deepak Gaur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Gram Sabha submitted that the procedure prescribed for granting of agricultural lease has not been followed as such the lease of the petitioner has been cancelled along with others. They further submitted that finding of the fact has been recorded by the Additional District Magistrate which has been affirmed by Board of Revenue while considering the lease granted in favour of the petitioner. They submitted that no interference is required in the matter and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner was granted agricultural lease in the year 1990 but under the order of the Additional District Magistrate dated 28.12.1992 the petitioner's lease has been cancelled. There is also no dispute about the fact that Additional Commissioner has sent the reference in favour of the petitioner to affirm her lease but Board of Revenue has rejected the reference and dismissed the revision filed by petitioner under the impugned order. 9. There is also no dispute about the fact that Additional Commissioner has sent the reference in favour of the petitioner to affirm her lease but Board of Revenue has rejected the reference and dismissed the revision filed by petitioner under the impugned order. 9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of the relevant portion of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner while sending the reference before the Board of Revenue will be relevant for consideration which are as under: 10. Considering the finding of fact recorded by Additional Commissioner, it is fully established that petitioner was eligible for the allotment of lease on the date of the allotment and there was no illegality in the execution of agricultural lease in favour of the petitioner and petitioner is continuing in possession of allotted land in pursuance of the interim order of this Court. 11. It is also material that petitioner belongs to S.C. community and petitioner is continuing in possession of allotted land in pursuance of the interim order of this Court as such, in view of the illegality, if any, committed in respect to the other lease holders, the petitioner's lease cannot be cancelled on the same principle. It is further material to mention that petitioner's lease was found correct in the year 1990 at the time of granting approval to the lease by authority concerned as well as Additional Commissioner has also examined the issues relating to execution of lease of all the 14 lease holders including the petitioner separately and found that petitioner's lease was executed in accordance with the provisions of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and rules framed thereunder but Additional District Magistrate and Board of Revenue have cancelled the petitioner's lease along with others in general manner rather to consider the every case in proper and separate manner. The matter is pending for last more than 33 years as such no useful purpose will be served by sending the matter back for reconsideration rather to affirm the lease of the petitioner which was granted in the year 1990 in favour of the petitioner. 12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 28.12.1992 passed by respondent no. 3 and orders dated 30.04.1996 as well as 03.02.2005 passed by respondent no. 1 are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside. 12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 28.12.1992 passed by respondent no. 3 and orders dated 30.04.1996 as well as 03.02.2005 passed by respondent no. 1 are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside. The instant writ petition stands allowed and the lease of the petitioner granted in the year 1990 is affirmed.