Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2631
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUDHIR AGARWAL, VIRENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Lov Mandeshwari Saran Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ C.No.33360, 35154 of 2018
Decided on : 31-10-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Harihar Prasad Srivastava
For the Respondent:C.S.C., Devi Prasad Mishra, Ajit Kumar Singh (Addl. A.G.), Nimai Das & Sudhanshu Srivastava (Addl.C.S.C.), M.D.Singh 'Shekhar' (Sr. Advocate), Amit Verma
Point of Law: Once the lease stood determined by efflux of time, there was no necessity for a notice of termination Under Section 106 of TP Act, 1882
Headnote:
Government Grants Act, 1895 – Section 4 –Issue on Property, leased land – Section 4 of Repeal Act, 2017 only protects right, title, obligation or liability already acquired, accrued or incurred by State of U.P. under GG Act, 1895 to resume Nazul land according to resumption clause of lease-deed prior to repeal of GG Act, 1895 and nothing more than that. Since no right, title, obligation or liability was acquired or incurred or accrued to State Government by resorting to resumption under resumption clause before repeal of GG Act, 1895, resumption sought with reference to GG Act, 1895 after its repeal is wholly illegal.
Facts of the case: Learned counsel for petitioner contended that property right of Betttiah Estate has been ascertained by Supreme Court petitioner is great grandson of Maharani Janki Kunwar, thereafter after her death he succeeded estate which included unexpired lease rights over land in dispute; there was some dispute over succession of estate of Maharani Janki Kunwar, therefore, estate of Maharani Janki Kunwar went into the hands of Court of Ward, Bihar for management and petitioner is entitled to transfer of leased land by Court of Ward, Bihar; when he submitted his application, Court of Ward held possession of land in dispute on behalf of legal heirs of Maharani Janki Kunwar; when it made application for renewal of lease, it was on behalf of such legal heirs
Finding of the court: Counsel for petitioners has not placed anything to show as to how argument are substantiated – It could not be disputed that petitioners are not claiming any right founded on adverse possession and therefore, doctrine of 'prescription' has no application –No limitation could be shown in the case in hand, which is applicable –The land in dispute has been found suitable for erection of building for 'Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court' and construction of 'Multipurpose Building' by A.D.A. and development whereof is public purpose – In fact, on this aspect, no substantial argument has been made and in Court view, resumption of land by State is for 'public purpose' – In view of above discussion, Court do not find any merit in both the petitions
Result: Writ Petitions dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. Both these writ petitions relate to Nazul Plot No.112, Strachey Road, Allahabad.
2. Writ Petition No.33360 of 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “Writ-1”) was heard on 29.5.2019 and judgment was reserved while Writ Petition No.35154 of 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “Writ-2”) was heard on 30.5.2019 and judgment was reserved. Counsel for parties stated that both the matters relate to same plot, involve common question of facts and law, therefore, we are deciding both these writ petitions by this common judgment.
3. Sri Harihar Prasad Srivastava, Advocate, appeared for petitioner in Writ-1 and Sri Pallav Saxena, Advocate, assisted by Sri Vikram D. Chauhan, Advocate, appeared for petitioners in Writ-2. Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Nimai Das and Sudhanshu Srivastava, Additional Chief Standing Counsels have appeared for State of U.P. and its Authorities; Sri M.D.Singh Shekhar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Amit Verma appeared for Allahabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “ADA”).
W.P.-1
4. In Writ-1, sole petitioner Lov Mandeshwari Saran Singh son of Late Badreshwari Saran Singh has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing notice dated 18.8.2018 issued by District Magistrate, Allahabad (respondent-3), intimating petitioner and one Jai Prakash Ojha, Manager, “The Prayag Upniveshan Avam Nirman Sahakari Samiti (hereinafter referred to as “PUANS Samiti”) that lease of land in dispute, expired on 31.12.1960, has not been renewed thereafter; State Government has granted approval for resumption/re-entry on land in dispute; therefore petitioner and another should vacate disputed land within 15 days and hand over possession, failing which forcible possession shall be taken. Petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus restraining respondents 1, 3, 4 and 5 from taking possession of land in dispute and also to place order dated 16.08.2018 passed by respondent-1 pertaining to proposal sent by respondent-2 to State Government, before this Court.
5. Brief facts pleaded by petitioner in Writ -1 are that Plot No.112, Civil Station, Allahabad is a Nazul Land having total area of 11,414 Sq.Meters. By way of an Indenture of Lease, dated 01.01.1894 it was let out to 'Agra Savings Bank Ltd.' in Liquidation, situate at Allahabad, on yearly rent of Rs.120/-for a period of seventeen years for maintaining and preserving building standing for dwelling purpose. The period of lease expired on 31.12.1910. The area of land mentioned in the Indenture of lease was 6 acres. Another lease deed was executed on 05.12.1924 whereby aforesaid plot 112, situate at Thornhill Road, area 2.821 acres, was let out to one Enite Edward Morean for a period of 50 years w.e.f. 01.01.1911. Some of the relevant terms of lease deed dated 05.12.1924 are as under :
(i) AND ALSO will not without the previous consent in writing of the said Collector erect or set up or suffer to be erected or set up on any part of the said premises hereby demised any messuage or building other than and except the messuage and buildings already erected and delineated upon the map hereto annexed.
(ii) AND THAT if in breach of the said preceding covenant any messuage or building is erected or set up or suffered to be erected or set up without such permission as aforesaid it shall be lawful for the Collector or for any person or persons duly deputed by him to cause such messuage or building to be pulled down after the expiration of fourteen days of his giving or causing to be given notice to the said lessee his Executors, Administrators and Assigns to remove the same which notice may be given either verbally or in writing upon the said premises.
(iii) AND will not without the previous consent in writing of the said Collector make any alteration in the plan or elevation of the said buildings and out buildings or c
