JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Om Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sudhanshu Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 5, Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Vimal Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no. 7.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plot no. 72 along with other plots as mentioned in the khatauni of 1429-1434 fasli (1st July 2021 to 30th June 2027) annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition situated in Village- Gahur (Mau), Tehsil-Mau, District-Chitrakoot belong to petitioner and respondent no. 7 along with other co-sharer. Petitioner alleged in the writpetition that respondent no. 7 has 1/64 share in the disputed plots while the petitioner has 1/8 share in the disputed plots. Respondent No. 7 executed a lease deed on 19.10.2022 in favour of respondent no. 6 in respect to plot in dispute for Solar Energy Project as provided under Uttar Pradesh Solar Energy Project, 2022. Petitioner alleged in the writ petition that respondent no. 7 has only 1/64 share in the disputed plots but he wrongly shown himself to be share holder of 1/8 share in the disputed plots. Petitioner along with others has already filed a Suit No. T202300190201682/2023 for partition in respect to the plot in dispute, under section 116 of U.P. revenue Code, 2006, which is stated to be pending before trial court as mentioned in Paragraph No. 12 of the writ petition.

3. The instant petition on behalf of the petitioner has been filed for quashing/cancelling the impugned lease deed executed and registered on 19.10.2022 in respect to the Plot No. 72 and others.

4. Stamp reporter has reported laches of 182 days in filing the instant writ petition, which has been explained in Paragraph Nos. 17, 18 & 19 of the writ petition.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that lease executed and registered on 19.10.2022 between respondent 7 and respondent 5 is void ab-initio as respondent no. 7 declared his share as 1/8 though he has only 1/64 share in the disputed plots. He further placed the C.H. Form Nos. 11, 41 and 45 in order to demonstrate the share of the parties which has been annexed as Annexure Nos. S.A.1, S.A.2 and S.A.3 to the supplementary affidavit dated 27.7.2023. He further submitted that every tenure holder of the plot in dispute are having share in the plots, as such, unless the share is divided among the tenure holder lease can not be executed in respect to the plot in dispute. He further submitted that suit for partition filed by the petitioner along with others in respect to the plot in dispute is pending before trial court. He further submitted that respondents have violated the Paragraph 12.1(c) of Uttar Pradesh Solar Energy Policy, 2022, which is as under:

12.1 Solar Power Projects on Private Land:

“12.1 (c) Private land will be allowed to be given on lease for development of solar Power Projects for a period of thirty years. Ownership of this land will be non-transferable and will remain with the shareholder. The District Collector will facilitate in leasing of land from the land owners by the Project developer.”

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner is third party to the lease deed, as such, petitioner has no remedy against the lease deed in question except writ petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India. He further placed Clause-18 of the lease deed, which provides remedy in case of dispute between lessor and lessee before District Magistrate. Clause-18 of the lease deed dated 19.10.2022 is as follows:

^^iV~Vsnkj ,oa iV~Vknkrk ds e/; fdlh fookn dh fLFkfr esa fyf[kr :i fookn lEcaf/kr ftys ds ftykf/kdkjh ds lUnfHkZr fd;k tk;sxkA ftykf/kdkjh dh e?;LFkk ,oa fu.kZ; nksuksa i{kksa ij ck/;dkjh gksaxsA**

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed Section 94 & 95 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in order to demonstrate that lease executed by respondent no. 7 is illegal.