Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Chandra Prakash – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Ms. Pratima Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Sri Hari Narain Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.6.
2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner belong to scheduled caste community. Petitioner’s father Mewa Lal along with sixteen others, was granted lease for agriculture purpose in the year 1975 in respect to plot no.107M, area 0.256 hectare and plot no.232 M, area 0.154 hectare, the name of petitioner’s father has been recorded in the revenue records, accordingly, petitioner father came in possession of disputed plot and started agriculture in the same. Petitioner was paying irrigation charges also as per provision. In the year 1994, Lekhpal submitted a report on 3.9.1994 that petitioner’s father is not doing agriculture for that last two years, accordingly, recommendation was made for taking action under Rule 61, under Section 186 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. Petitioner’s father filed his objection on 14.9.1994 to the proceeding initiated under Section 186 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, stating that he is doing agriculture in the plot in dispute and the crops are standing in the same.
The cancellation of land leases after a significant delay violates statutory provisions and principles of reasonable time, affirming the rights of long-term lessees under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition....
An Aasami lease under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is limited to a maximum of five years, and upon expiration, the rights do not transfer to heirs unless specifically provided by law. The court emphasized....
The principle of limitation is fundamental in administrative proceedings, and actions taken after substantial delays are unsustainable under law.
Aasami leases under U.P. law are limited to five years and cannot be inherited post-expiration, thus the petitioner had no rights over the land after the lease expired.
Bhumidhari rights cannot accrue on land classified as forest or public utility land under Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950.
Cancellation of an agricultural lease based on time-barred complaints is legally impermissible, emphasizing adherence to statutory time limits as per U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
The court affirmed the agricultural lease granted to the petitioner, ruling that cancellation was arbitrary and lacked proper individual consideration, especially given the petitioner's eligibility a....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
