Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Sri Kanhaiya Lal Trust and Another - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Writ - C No. 3955 of 2022
Decided On : 17-04-2023
Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 - Section 82 - Application - Registered trust - Sale deed - Seeking to raise a challenge to an order - Petitioners failed to establish educational institution and filed an application dated under Section 82 of the Code, 2006 before respondent no.2 seeking cancellation of declaration obtained earlier - Upon aforestated application, a report was obtained from respondent No.3-Tahsildar, Saharanpur which was submitted - Report indicated that apart from a boundary wall of height about 4-5 feet, there existed no other construction over the land in question and that land was not being utilised for any commercial purpose - It was stated that crops of wheat were standing over land and it was being utilised for agricultural work - A similar report indicating use of land for agricultural purpose was submitted by area - Since, no orders were passed by the respondent authorities even after obtaining requisite reports, petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ - C No. which was disposed of by an order dated directing Sub-Divisional Magistrate to decide application within stipulated time period - Whether narrower or wider sense of meaning of term 'agriculture' is to be adopted in a particular case would depend upon provision contained in statute and also upon facts and circumstances of each case - A report dated submitted by Area Lekhpal has also been placed on record wherein it is stated that crops of wheat were standing over land in question and the same was being used for agricultural purpose and not for any commercial purpose. [Para 46]
Finding of Court : Conditions which are required to be satisfied while considering an application under Section 82 of Code, 2006 seeking cancellation of declaration made under Section 80, having been clearly specified under section itself, reference made in order impugned to any other circumstance and on basis thereof to reject the application of petitioner, would therefore render exercise of discretionary power conferred on authority as ultra vires and invalid - Order impugned having thus been passed in absence of consideration of relevant provisions and being based on wholly irrelevant consideration, is accordingly held to be legally unsustainable and is, therefore, set aside - matter is remitted to respondent No. 3 for passing a fresh order on basis of the provisions contained under Section 82 of Code, 2006, in light of discussions made hereinabove - Respondent authority would be expected to pass an appropriate order on the application of petitioner under Section 82 seeking cancellation of declaration under Section 80, after obtaining a fresh report, expeditiously, and preferably within a period of three months from date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
Result : writ petition stands allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Gaurav Singh and Sri Kumar Sreshtha, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General appearing along with Sri Abhishek Shukla and Sri Amit Manohar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents; and Sri Kaushal Kishore Mani, learned counsel for the respondent no.4-Gram Sabha.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking to raise a challenge to an order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the respondent no.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Saharanpur whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 82 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, [the Code, 2006] for cancellation of an earlier declaration made under Section 80 of the Code, 2006, has been rejected.
3. As per the facts pleaded in the writ petition, the petitioner has asserted itself to be a registered trust having as its aims and objects to improve educational and social awareness in society. The petitioner no. 2 claims to have purchased land by means of a registered sale deed dated 25.04.2017 from its recorded tenure holders and thereafter got itself mutated in the revenue records.
4. The petitioner trust, thereafter, intending to construct an educational institution moved an application dated 14.07.2017 under Section 80 of the Code, 2006 for getting a declaration that the land in question was being used for non-agricultural purpose. The aforestated application was allowed by the respondent no.2 by an order dated 08.09.2017 and declaration was made that the land was being used for non-agricultural purpose.
5. After lapse of some time, due to certain constraints, the petitioners failed to establish the educational institution and therefore, filed an application dated 24.10.2019 under Section 82 of the Code, 2006 before the respondent no.2 seeking cancellation of the declaration obtained earlier. Upon the aforestated application, a report was obtained from the respondent No.3-Tahsildar, Saharanpur which was submitted on 02.03.2020. The report indicated that apart from a boundary wall of height about 4-5 feet, there existed no other construction over the land in question and that the land was not being utilised for any commercial purpose. It was stated that crops of wheat were standing over the land and it was being utilised for agricultural work. A similar report indicating the use of the land for agricultural purpose was submitted by area Lekhpal on 14.08.2020. Since, no orders were passed by the respondent authorities even after obtaining the requisite reports, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ - C No. 10252 of 2021 (Shri Kanhaiya Lal Trust and Another vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) which was disposed of by an order dated 19.7.2021/26.07.2021 directing the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to decide the application within stipulated time period.
6. The petitioner, at this stage, submitted a fresh application dated 2.8.2021 upon which the area Lekhpal and the Tehsildar submitted their report dated 25.11.2021 wherein it was stated that the spot inspection indicated that apart from a boundary wall of height 4-5 feet, no other construction was existing over the land in question. It was stated that no school had been constructed over the land and commercial work was being carried out by running a nursery of decorative and timber plants.
7. Relying upon the aforesaid report, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate rejected the application of the petitioner seeking cancellation of declaration under Section 82 of the Code, 2006 by the impugned order dated 16.12.2021. This order was passed in compliance of the direction issued by the High Court in Writ C No.-10252 of 2021.
8. Challenging the aforestated order, counsel for the petitioners has primarily based his contention on the argument that Section 4(2) of the Code, 2006 defines 'agriculture' as being inclusive of flower farming and therefore, any activity relating to nursery would be covered within the meaning of the term 'agriculture'.
Point of Law : Decision by an authority exercising discretionary power under a statute must be arrived at by taking into account the relevant considerations and eschewing the irrelevant consideration....
Actual agricultural user is not a mandatory condition to qualify for the 'agricultural land' exclusion under Section 2(14)(iii). The determination depends on objective geographical distance criteria ....
The court emphasized that quasi-judicial authorities must adhere to procedural integrity, and any order based on false representations is void.
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
