Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 396 (ALL)

Chandradeiya v. Board Of Revenue

2025-02-27

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2025
JUDGMENT : Chandra Kumar Rai, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. L.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Anjani Kumar Chaurasia, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for respondent- Gram Sabha. 2. The name of complainant/ respondent no.3, Bhrigu Singh has been deleted on the basis of application filed on behalf of the petitioners. 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners along with others were granted agriculture lease in view of the Family Planning Scheme of the Government in respect to plot No. 208 and 205 situated at Village Majhauna, Pargana Sikanderpur Garvi, Tehsil Rasra, District Ballia which was recorded as naveen parti in the revenue records. The lease executed in favour of petitioners was approved by Sub Divisional Magistrate on 26.12.1986. The possession of the plot in question was delivered in favour of the petitioners in the year 1986- 87. One Bhrigu Singh filed a complaint in the year 2000 in respect to the lease executed in favour of petitioners and on the basis of aforementioned complaint, the case No. 570 of 2000 was registered under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The show cause notice was issued by Additional District Magistrate to the petitioners accordingly petitioners filed their objection in the matter. The Additional District Magistrate vide order dated 24.9.2001 rejected/ dismissed the proceeding under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Against the order dated 24.9.2001, Bhrigu Singh filed a revision before the Commissioner which was registered as revision No. 69/B-2001 under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The aforementioned revision was heard and allowed by Commissioner/ respondent no.2 vide order dated 15.3.2002 cancelling the lease executed in favour of petitioners. Against the order dated 15.3.2002 petitioners filed a revision before respondent no.1/ Board of Revenue which was dismissed by Board of Revenue vide order dated 9.5.2012. Hence this writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioners for the following reliefs:- "(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgement and order dated 9.5.2012 passed by respondent no.1, Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad in revision No. 189 of 2001-02 Shrimati Chandradeiya and Others Vs. Hence this writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioners for the following reliefs:- "(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgement and order dated 9.5.2012 passed by respondent no.1, Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad in revision No. 189 of 2001-02 Shrimati Chandradeiya and Others Vs. Bhrigu and Others and also dated 15.3.2002 passed by Commissioner/ respondent no.2 in revision No. 570 of 2000 Shri Bhrigu Vs. Smt. Chandradeiya and others. (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their allotted land in pursuance of impugned judgement and order dated 9.5.2012 in revision No. 189 of 2001-02 Shrimati Chandradeiya Vs. Bhrigu and others passed by respondent no.1/ Board of Revenue." 4. During pendency of the writ petition, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Gram Sabha in the matter although no order was passed by this Court for filing counter affidavit since 2012. 5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners were granted lease on the basis of Scheme initiated by the Government for family planning in the year 1986-87. He further submitted that petitioners came in possession over the allotted land in the year 1986-87. He submitted that proceeding for cancellation has been initiated after 13 years by one Bhrigu Singh and Additional District Magistrate has rejected/ dismissed the proceeding holding that lease was executed in favour of petitioners in accordance with law. He submitted that revision filed by Bhrigu Singh has been allowed on the ground that there was no proposal of the Gram Sabha for the lease in question. He submitted that Additional District Magistrate has recorded the finding of fact that proceeding/ complaint initiated/ lodged by Bhrigu Singh was misconceived as during consolidation operation, no objection was filed by Bhrigu Singh for their right and title in respect to plot in question, as such, the lease executed in favour of petitioners cannot be cancelled after 13 years on the basis of complaint filed by private party. He submitted that in revision filed by Bhrigu Singh, the lease has been cancelled on the misconceived ground and the revision filed by petitioners has been dismissed by Board of Revenue in arbitrary manner. He submitted that in revision filed by Bhrigu Singh, the lease has been cancelled on the misconceived ground and the revision filed by petitioners has been dismissed by Board of Revenue in arbitrary manner. He submitted that limitation has been provided earlier under the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and now under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for cancellation of agriculture lease but without considering the limitation question, the lease of the petitioners executed in the year 1986-87 has been cancelled by learned Commissioner on the basis of complaint/ proceeding initiated by the Bhrigu Singh in the year 2000. He further placed reliance upon the judgement of this Court reported in 2018 (140) RD 1 (Rishi Pal & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others) in order to demonstrate that lease cannot be cancelled on the basis of highly time barred proceeding. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Anjani Kumar Chaurasia, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for respondent- Gram Sabha submitted that Commissioner has recorded finding of fact for cancelling the petitioners' lease, as such, no interference is required against the order passed by Commissioner. He submitted that Board of Revenue has rightly maintained the order of Commissioner cancelling the petitioners' lease. They further submitted that in absence of any resolution of the Land Management Committee, the lease cannot be executed in favour of petitioners. He submitted that in view of the finding of fact recorded Commissioner, no interference is required and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that petitioners were granted agriculture lease in the year 1986-87 in view of the Family Planning Scheme of the Government. There is also no dispute about the fact that complaint/ proceeding under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was initiated by one Bhrigu Singh after 13 years from the date of execution of lease but the Trial Court has rejected/ dismissed the cancellation proceeding. There is also no dispute about the fact that Commissioner in exercise of revisional jurisdiction has set aside the order of Additional District Magistrate and cancelled the petitioners lease which has been maintained by Board of Revenue. 9. There is also no dispute about the fact that Commissioner in exercise of revisional jurisdiction has set aside the order of Additional District Magistrate and cancelled the petitioners lease which has been maintained by Board of Revenue. 9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of the finding of fact recorded by Additional District Magistrate while passing the order dated 24.9.2001 will be relevant which is as under:- 10. The perusal of the finding of fact recorded by the Additional District Magistrate fully demonstrate that the lease was executed in favour of petitioners in the year 1986-87 in accordance with law and complaint has been filed by private respondents after 13 years from the date of execution of lease deed. 11. The Commissioner has taken new ground in the revision filed by Bhrigu Singh that there was no resolution of the Land Management Committee allotting the land in favour of the petitioners. 12. The record demonstrate that no such case was set up on behalf of Land Management Committee or State before the District Magistrate, as such, the ground for cancellation mentioned by the Commissioner while allowing the revision and cancelling the lease of the petitioners on the basis of highly time barred proceeding cannot be entertained in the eye of law. 13. This Court in Rishi Pal (Supra) has held that on the basis of the time barred proceeding, the lease executed in favour of the lease holder cannot be cancelled by the Court. The relevant paragraph of the judgement rendered in Rishi Pal (Supra) are as follows:- "7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the orders dated 1.6.2011 and 23.3.2012 cannot be sustained and are to be quashed. 8. The pattas were executed in the year 1992. Under Sub-section (6) of Section 195 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the complaint which was filed in the year 2003-04 was barred by limitation by almost six years. 9. Further, I hold that since the question of limitation goes to the very root of the matter, even though it was not agitated before the courts below, it can definitely be raised here in this Court. Section 3 of the Indian Limitation Act would also be relvant. 9. Further, I hold that since the question of limitation goes to the very root of the matter, even though it was not agitated before the courts below, it can definitely be raised here in this Court. Section 3 of the Indian Limitation Act would also be relvant. The same is being reproduced here as under: "Section 3.- Bar of limitation - (1) Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence. (2) For the purpose of this Act, - (a) A suit is instituted, - (i) in an ordinary case, when the plaint is presented to the proper officer; (ii) in the case of pauper, when his application for leave to sue as a pauper is made; and (iii) in the case of a claim against a company which is being wound up by the Court, when the claimant first sends in his claim to the official liquidator; (b) any claim by way of a set off or a counter-claim, shall be treated as a separate suit and shall be deemed to have been instituted - (i) in the case of a set off, on the same date as the suit in which the set off is pleaded; (ii) in the case of a counter-claim, on the date on which the counter-claim is made in Court; (c) an application by notice of motion in a High Court is made when the application is presented to the proper officer of that Court" 10. The question of limitation had to be therefore looked into by the Court even if he dendant /opposite party had not raised it. 11. Further, after the application which was filed by Hardas was dismissed for non prosecution then he alone could have filed the application for restoration. State was a party whose actions were being adjudicated upon in the complaint which was filed by Hardas. It could not therefore, have supported the restoration application of Hardas. 12. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The orders dated 1.6.2011 and 23.3.2012 are quashed. 13. It is made clear that this relief would be confined to the petitioners who had filed the instant writ petition." 14. It could not therefore, have supported the restoration application of Hardas. 12. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The orders dated 1.6.2011 and 23.3.2012 are quashed. 13. It is made clear that this relief would be confined to the petitioners who had filed the instant writ petition." 14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as ratio of law laid down by this Court in Rishi Pal (Supra) , the impugned judgement dated 9.5.2012 passed by respondent no.1, Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad and 15.3.2002 passed by respondent no.2, Commissioner Azamgarh Division Azamgarh are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside. 15. The writ petition stands allowed and the authorities are directed to record the name of the petitioners on the basis of lease executed in their favour. 16. No order as to costs.