The main legal point established is that the maximum period of a lease under Rule 176A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition And Land Reforms Act, 1950 is five years, and the lease would come to an end on the expiry of this period, regardless of abandonment.

JUDGMENT :

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashok Nath Tripathi learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajesh Srivastava learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. This petition calls in question an order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 04 November 1995. A challenge is further laid to the orders of 27 December 2002 and 11 December 2003. By the original order an asami lease which was granted to the petitioners was held to be terminated and consequential directions issued for expungement of their names from the relevant record. The petitioners are stated to have filed an application for recall of that order which was dismissed on 27 December 2002. That order has been affirmed by the authority in revision.

3. The petitioners claimed rights over the property in question in light of a lease executed in their favour in respect of plot Nos. 1998 and 1999. Undisputedly the plots in question fell in the category of land enumerated in Section 132 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition And Land Reforms Act, 1950 ["the 1950 Act"]. It was admittedly a lease referable to the provisions of Section 197 of the 1950 Act. The Patta which had been executed on Form-59 did not prescribe a particular tenure for the lease. However, bearing in mind the nature of the lease, indubitably it would be governed by the provisions made in Rule 176A of the Rules framed under the 1950 Act.

4. It appears that initially the respondents took the view that the petitioners had failed to utilise the Patta for the purposes granted, namely, for establishing a dairy and therefore, it must be held that they had abandoned the lease. It was consequently held as liable to be terminated. It was in the above backdrop that the respondents proceeded to pass the order of 04 November 1995 purporting to invoke the provisions of Section 186 of the 1950 Act. This Court while entertaining the petition on 07 April 2004 had provided for status quo in respect of the disputed plot being maintained by parties. That order is stated to have continued till date. During the pendency of the petition, an amendment application was moved in terms of which the petitioners have additionally sought extension of benefits conferred by Section 76(dd) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 ["the 2006 Code"] that came to be promulgated in the meanwhile and replaced the 1950 Act.

5. The principal contention which is addressed by Sri Tripathi was that Section 186 of the 1950 Act deals with abandonment and as is evident from a bare reading of subsection (5) thereof, once the Bhumidhar or Asami appears to contest the notice, it is incumbent upon the Tehsildar to drop all proceedings. According to Sri Tripathi the initial order was passed without notice and aggrieved thereby once the petitioners applied for recall and restoration, the proceedings should have been dropped at that stage itself. It is his submission that the lease was one without a fixed tenure thus conferring a right on the petitioners to possess the land in question till it was determined in accordance with law. Sri Tripathi further submits that in terms of the provisions made in clause (dd) of Section 76 of the 2006 Code and bearing in mind that the petitioners have been in continuous possession of the leased land, they must be extended all benefits as contemplated under that provision.

6. Sri Rajesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel, countering these submissions has firstly contended that the Patta which was executed in favour of the petitioners was clearly referable to Section 197 of the 1950 Act since undisputedly the land which was leased fell within the ambit of the categories enumerated in Section 132 of that Act. In view of the above, Sri Srivastava submitted that the lease in question must be recognised as being for a maximum period of five years in light of the provisions made in Rule 176-A. According to Sri Srivastava, the provisions of Section 76(dd) of the 2006 Code can have no application since land which is covered under