Ram Awadh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Court No. - 51 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41651 of 2023 Petitioner :- Ram Awadh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh C. Dwivedi Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶1Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Suresh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents.

¶2The instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.9.2023 and 27.11.2023 passed by respondent no.3.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from araji no.17, area

0.065 hect., arazi no.22, area 0.040 hect, situated in mouza Harrendad Bujurg, Tappa Parsi, Pargana Dhuriapar, Tehsil Khajni, District Gorakhpur in pursuance of the impugned oreder dated 28.9.2023."

¶3Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plantation lease granted in favour of the petitioner, has been cancelled in arbitrary manner by the respondents. It is further submitted that after grant of plantation lease in favour of the petitioner, petitioner has planted the trees in accordance with the provisions of the terms mentioned in the lease deed but the authorities are interferring with the right of the petitioner, accordingly, civil suit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner being Civil Suit No.184/2023 which is pending before the Civil Judge (S.D.), Gorakhpur. He further submitted that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. filed on behalf of the defendants has been rejected. He also submitted that without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the plantation lease has been cancelled under the impugned order. He also submitted that the alternative remedy will not come in the way of the petitioner as the order impugned cancelling the petitioner's lease has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice.

¶4Mr. M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that against the order impugned, remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner before the Collector in view of Clause 18 of the Government Order dated 30.12.1985. He further submitted that petitioner has not followed the terms of the lease deed, accordingly, the lease has been cancelled after issuing notices to the parties but petitioner has refused to accept the notice. He also submitted that the suit filed by the petitioner is pending before the civil court wherein no injunction has been granted, as such, no interference is required in the matter and the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

¶5I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶6There is no dispute about the fact that the plantation lease was granted in favour of the petitioner in the year 1995 which has been cancelled under the impugned order.

¶7In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of Clause 18 of the Government Order dated 30.12.1985 will be relevant, which are quoted hereunder:- "यददि दनिरर቗ኋररित अवधर मम ववृकररिरोपण निहीሻ दकियर जरतर हहै अथवर ववृकኘ᭎ किकी उदचित ्ቚकिररि ससे दिसेखभरल निहीሻ किकी जरतती हहै यर अनिनु्ሺदप/पटसे किकी दकिसती शत቗ኋ किर उलቤ቏घनि दकियर जरतर हहै तरो अनिनु्ሺदप/पटसे किरो परिगनिरधरकिररिती दररिर सቤ቏दकप जराምचि किसे बरदि दनिरिस्त दकियर जर सकितर हहै तथर उसकिसे पररिणरम स्वरूप अनिनु्ሺरपती/पटसेदिररि किरो उसकिसे दररिर लगरयसे गयसे ववृकኘ᭎ यर दकियसे गयसे दकिसती अन्य किरय቗ኋ किसे धलयसे किरोई्ቚ दतकिरि दिसेय निहीሻ हरोगर तथर उसकिकी सरिसरिती रूप ससे बसेदिखलती किरि दिती जरयसेगती औरि वत቗ኋमरनि ववृकኘ᭎ किर स्वरदमत्व रिरज्य सरिकिररि मम दनिदहत हरो जरयसेगर। अनिनु्ሺरपती/पटसेदिररि इस ्ቚकिररि किसे आदिसेश किसे दवरु्ቍ अपरि किलसेक्टरि/किलसेक्टरि किरो अपतील किरि सकितर हहै धजनिकिर आदिसेश अनन्तम हरोगर।"

¶8From the perusal of Clause 18 of the G.O. dated 30.12.1985, it reflects that against the impugned order, remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner.

¶9In view of the provisions contained under Clause 18 of the G.O. dated

30.12.1985, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

¶10However, petitioner can file appeal against the impugned order within a period of three weeks from today which shall be decided by the Collector in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months, from the date of filing of the appeal. Order Date :- 11.12.2023 C.Prakash High Court of Judicature at Allahabad