Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 434 (ALL)

Deepak Kumar Verma v. Union of India

2025-03-05

SHEKHAR B. SARAF, VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned order dated 28.12.2024 passed by respondent no. 3 by which candidature of the petitioner for retail outlet dealership was cancelled. 2. Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Malviya, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Gaurav Kumar Chand, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, Sri Devi Shanker Shukla, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 and perused the record. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for retail outlet dealership in pursuance of advertisement dated 28.06.2023. The petitioner has fulfilled all the requirement as per the advertisement, but his candidature has been rejected by the respondent authority merely on the ground that lease deed was not executed by all the co-owners. The lease deed dated 23.09.2023 executed by Raj Narayan and legal heirs of late Lal Bahadur Singh in favour of petitioner for 35 x 35 meter land (total area 1225 sq. meter) from Arazi No. 485 & 488 which fulfills land requirement. 4. We have gone through the impugned order dated 28.12.2024. The respondent authority had cancelled the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that the land was not leased out by all the co-owners. The relevant extract of the order dated 28.12.2024 is reproduced herein below :- " Complaint 1:- Land offered by the selected applicant Sh. Deepak Kumar Verma has not taken the land on lease from all the co-owners; After investigation of complaint, findings are as below :- 1. As per the application and khatauni submitted by you, the offered land, Gata No. 485 & 488, Village Piratipur, Tehsil & District Ghazipur, is co-owner by Sh. Raj Narayan S/o Kuvar and Sh. Lal Bahadur S/o Kuvar. Sh. Lal Bahadur S/o Kuvar has passed away, and the following legal heirs' names have been updated in the khatauni :- Smt. Vimla Devi w/o Lal Bahadure Singh Shri Manish Kumar Singh S/oLal bahadur Singh Shri Uday Pratap Singh S/o Lal Bahadur Singh Shri Subhasg Singh S/o Lal Bahadur Singh 2. However, as per the complaint, after verifying the khatauni for Gata No. 485 & 488, it is observed that additional persons were listed as co-owners. A couple of co- owners have also submitted affidavits stating that they are co-owners, and the property division is still pending. However, as per the complaint, after verifying the khatauni for Gata No. 485 & 488, it is observed that additional persons were listed as co-owners. A couple of co- owners have also submitted affidavits stating that they are co-owners, and the property division is still pending. The additional names are as follows :- Shri Ajay S/o Ram Ashish Shri Vijay S/o Ram Ashish Shri Sanjay S/o Ram Ashish Shri Mrityunjay S/o Ram Ashish 3. Based on documents collected from the applicant and the complaint, and after due verification, it is observed that the partition of the offered land was not carried out before the submission of the application for the dealership. The landowners who leased the land to the applicant had applied for the partition of the land at the SDM, Sadar, Ghazipur, under online case No. T202414291000249 dated 15.12.2023. 4. As per the SDM order dated 28.06.2024, it is clear that the partition of the land has not yet been completed. 5. The other co-owners of the land, including Shri Vijay Singh, filed a case in the Civil Judge Jr. Division Court, Ghazipur, which was registered as OS No. 185/2024 dated 11.03.2024, against Shri Manish Singh and others, including the applicant. The case raises objections to the construction of the petrol pump, as the partition among all co-owners is still pending. 6. Opinion sought from our panel advocate, Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Ghazipur. As per his opinion in the letter dated 25.07.2024, no further process should be carried out as the offered land is under dispute among the co-owners, and the partition has not been completed. The court has scheduled the next hearing for 20.08.2024. Additionally, the advocate's report dated 25.07.2024 and a copy of the plaint for suit No. 185/2024 pending before CJ(SD), Ghazipur, indicate that the lease deed has not been executed by all the co-owners who inherited the land from a common ancestor. No partition of the offered Gata No. 485 and 488 had been made at the time of executing the lease. Furthermore, the said suit is pending for the cancellation of the lease deed. Hence, the allegations of the complaint are substantiated. 7. Based on the investigation and due verification of the documents, and as per the details mentioned above, it is established that the applicant did not register the offered land with all the co-owners at the time of submitting the application. Hence, the allegations of the complaint are substantiated. 7. Based on the investigation and due verification of the documents, and as per the details mentioned above, it is established that the applicant did not register the offered land with all the co-owners at the time of submitting the application. The complaint has been substantiated. Considering the above points, your candidature for the Retail Outlet Dealership at the specified location is hereby cancelled. This decision is made in adherence to the dealership selection guidelines and based on the findings of the investigation and legal advice obtained." 5. From the perusal of Khatauni (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition), it is apparent that apart from Raj Narayan and late Lal Bahadur Singh there are six other co- owners of the said property, whereas, the lease deed was executed only by Raj Narayan and legal heirs of late Lal Bahadur Singh. Other co-owners have not signed the lease deed and since partition had not taken place, the decision of respondent authority in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner cannot be said to be arbitrary and malafide. 6. It is also apparent from the record that the land owners who leased the land to the petitioner had applied for partition before SDM, Sadar, Ghazipur on 15.12.2023 and as per order dated 28.06.2024 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition), the land had not yet been partitioned. 7. Upon perusal of the record, it is very much clear that on the date of application, the offered land being Gata Nos. 485 & 488 had not been partitioned and the lease deed was not executed by all the co-owners. 8. The reasons recorded by the respondent authority in rejecting the candidature of petitioner for retail outlet dealership is based on evidence and there is no illegality in any manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to establish that there was any partition between the co-owners or that the lease deed was executed by all the co-owners. 9. No ground for interference is made out. 10. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed.