Brijendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Court No. - 51 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36080 of 2023 Petitioner :- Brijendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Kumar Yadav,Vinod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hari Narayan Singh Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶1Heard Mr. Mahendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.P. Singh Bishen, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Hari Narayan Singh for the respondent no.6-Gaon Sabha.

¶2The instant petition has been filed against the order dated

24.9.2019, passed by respondent no.2 u/s 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as well as the order dated 29.4.2015, passed by respondent no.3 u/s 198 (4) of of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

¶3In the petition, it is mentioned that plot no.1005 area 0.21 decimal, plot no.1112 area 0.29 decimal and plot no.1113 area 0.10 decimal (old plot no.956) was recorded as banzar in the revenue records. It is further mentioned that allotment for agricultural purpose was made in favour of respondent no.5 in the year 1988-

¶89It is further mentioned that petitioner initiated a proceeding for cancellation of lease executed in favour of respondent no.5 in the year 2010. It is further mentioned that the proceeding was registered as Case No.20 of 2015. Respondent no.3/District Magistrate/Collector, Kannauj, vide order dated 29.4.2015, rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Petitioner challenged the order dated 29.4.2015 through revision u/s 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which was dismissed, vide order dated

24.9.2019, hence this petition on behalf of the petitioner.

¶4Stamp reporter has reported latches of 1362 days in filing the petition, which has been explained in paragraph nos.22 to 28 of the writ petition.

¶5In the writ petition, ground has been taken that allotment has been made in an arbitrary manner as such the lease executed in favour of respondent no.5 is liable to be cancelled. It is further mentioned that respondent no.5 is not eligible for the allotment as such the lease executed in favour of respondent no.5 cannot be maintained in view of the provisions contained under U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

¶6Mr. S.P. Singh Bishen, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Hari Narayan Singh for the respondent no.6-Gaon Sabha submitted that proceeding for cancellation initiated by petitioner is barred by limitation as prescribed u/s 198 (6) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and u/s 128 (1-A) of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006. They further submitted that both the courts have recorded findings that proceeding is highly time barred as such the application for cancellation of lease as well as revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, which requires no interference by this Court.

¶7I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶8There is no dispute about the fact that plot in dispute was allotted to respondent no.5 for agricultural purpose in the year 1988-89 and the proceedings for cancellation have been initiated in the year 2010 as pleaded in the writ petition. There is also no dispute about the fact that both the courts have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground of violation of mandatory condition for initiating proceeding for cancellation of lease as provided under the Act/Code.

¶9In order to appreciate the controversy, perusal of Sections 198

(6) of of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and Sections 128 (1-A) of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 will be relevant, which are as under :-" U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950:-Section 198 (6) -Every notice to show' cause mentioned in sub-section (5) may be issued-

(a) in the case of an allotment of land made before November 10, 1980, (hereinafter referred to as the said date), before the expiry of a period of [seven years] from the said date; and

(b) in the case of an allotment of land made on or after the said date, before the expiry of a period of five years from the date of such allotment or lease or up to November 10, 1987, which ever be later. U.P. Revenue Code 2006:- "Section 128 (1-A) provides that any application under sub-section (1) may be moved in case of allotment of land made before the commencement of this Code, within 5 years from the date of such commencement and in case of allotment of land made on or after..."

¶10The perusal of the finding recorded by the Collector, Kannauj while passing the order dated 29.4.2015, will also be relevant, which is as under :- "

पकगणककववददनअधधवकदगणककतकररककससनदएरवपतदवललपरउपलबध

समसततथयय/

सदकययककभलल-

भदभवतअनसशललनवकयदगयद।पतदवललमम

शदवमलछदयदपवतसल.एच.-41

ककअवलककनयहसपषहहवकवववदवदतआरदजल

आवरटनककसमयबरजरदजरथल।पटदवनरसतलकरणकदवददआवरटनककलगभग

वररबददपसतसतवकयदगयदहह,

दकरलकदभलककईकदरणनहलवदयदगयदहह।

ववपकलवतरमदनसमयममवववदवदतआरदजलपरसरकमणलयभभवमधरककरपममदजर

हह।इसककअवतररकपवतवददलककववददनअधधवकदददरदददधखलवववभननयदवयक

वयवसथदओरककअवलककनसकयहपभणरपकणसपषहहवकपटदवनरसतलकरणहकतस

वमयदरद07

वररहह,

वकनतसवददलनकयहवददलगभग56

वररबददददयरवकयदगयद हह,

जकवकवमयदरदककबदहरहकनककककदरणपकरणलयनहलहह।इसककअवतररकवददल

यहधसदनहलकरसकदहहवकवहआवरटनसकवकसपकदरकसबधवयवक (Aggrieve Person)

हह।वतरमदनपररससथवतययममददवदकदलबदधधत(Beyond Limitation)

हकनकएरववददलआवरटनसककसबधवयवक(Aggrieved Person) न

हकनककककदरणवददलददरदपसतसतवददअ०धदरद-198(4)

ज०वव०अ०गदहयतद

सतरपरसवलकदरवकयकजदनकयकगयनहलपदयदजदतदहहतथदवनरसतवकयदजदनद

नयदयकवचतएरवववधधकपतलतहकतदहह।

आदकश

उपरककवववकचनदककआधदरपरवददलशलबबजकनदधसरहपसतबदवभरदम,

वन०गदम

नगलदमधईममजदवबरमललपरगनदतदलगदम,

तहसललवछबरदमऊ, जनपद

कनमजददरदयकधजतपटदवनरसतलकरणकदवददवदनदरवकत6.3.2009 बलहलन

हकनक कक कदरण वनरसत वकयद जदतद हह। आदकश कक पवत उप धजलदधधकदरल/

तहसललददरवछबरदमऊककसभचनदथरएरवआवशयककदयरवदहलहकतस

पकवरतककजदयक।बददआवशयककदयरवदहलपतदवललसरवचतअवभलकखदगदरकक जदयक। (

अनसजकसमदरझद)

कलकटरकनमज।"

¶11The perusal of the finding of fact recorded by the Collector Kannauj reveals that cancellation proceeding is highly time barred as such the same cannot be entertained in view of the provisions contained under the Act/Code.

¶12This Court in the case of Rishipal and others vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2018 (140) RD 1 has held that application for cancellation of lease cannot be entertained after prescribed period of limitation as provided under the Act/Code and rule framed thereunder.

¶13Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned Judgement.

¶14Writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 16.11.2023 m.a. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad