WRIT PETITION 1002021 of 2005 on 13 December 2004

Conclusion

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Divesh Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent, Sri Anoop Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 and Sri R.S. Tomar, learned counsel for respondent No.7.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the orders dated 13.12.2004 and 28.8.1993, passed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, contained as Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were granted lease in the year 1990. A proceeding under Section 198 (4) was initiated and the lease of the petitioners was cancelled vide order dated 28.8.1993, against which, they preferred revision, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2004.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were not afforded opportunity of hearing, therefore, there is violation of Section 198(5) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. It is also submitted that no opportunity to file objection was provided to the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 submitted that they were given fullest opportunity of hearing and on the basis of inspection, every allottee was present and was heard in opposition, therefore, there is no scope of interference in the impugned orders. It is also submitted that the petitioners nowhere in the writ petition, have stated the gata number and detail that they are landless and are entitled for the grant of lease, being landless persons. They submitted that the impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and are just and valid orders.

6. I have perused the material on record as well as considered the submission advanced by the parties.

7. In the opening part of the order dated 28.8.1993, it is stated that the spot inspection was made in presence of villagers, Gram Pradhan and Land Management Committee and related allottees were heard in opposition. There is no recital in the writ petition that the statement of fact recorded in the impugned order is incorrect and at no point of time, they were examined by the authority concerned. Finding has also been recorded that Ram Kishun and Bal Kishun are sons of Gulab and at the time of allotment of lease, Bal Kishun was minor and they were residing altogether, therefore, the lease of Gulab was held to be valid and the lease granted to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 was held to be invalid. This finding has also not been challenged in the writ petition and in regard to the petitioner No.3, finding has returned that he was minor at the time of allotment of lease and on the date of inspection also, he was found to be minor, therefore, his claim was rejected. The finding returned in the impugned order has not been assailed in the writ petition.

8. The revisional authority accepted the finding recorded by the trial court and has rejected the revision, holding the order to be valid and does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.

9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality in cancellation of lease of the petitioners and that has rightly been done. The finding returned in regard to the petitioners has not been assailed in the writ petition, therefore, no relief can be granted in exercise of discretionary power under Article 226

3

of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

October 13, 2025Gautam

(Irshad Ali,J.)