Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ashutosh Srivastava, J.
Shakeel Ahmad - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of Up And Others - Respondent
WRIT - C No. - 3750 of 2024
Decided On : 02-05-2024
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act - Land Rights and Lease - Sections 76(1)(dd), 132, 176(A) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950; Section 77 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 - The court interpreted Section 76(1)(dd) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, which allows an Asami in possession of land not covered by Section 77 to be recorded as Bhumidhar. However, it concluded that the land in question was categorized as 'Banjar' and not covered under Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, thus the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits of Bhumidhar rights. The court emphasized the five-year limit on Aasami leases under Rule 176(A), which had expired, leading to the restoration of the land to Gram Sabha property. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these sections and the established legal precedent regarding Aasami leases and Bhumidhar rights.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged orders that struck off his name and his family's from the land records, restoring the land as Gram Sabha property. The petitioner claimed that the land was leased to his father, Tasleem Ahmad, and that he had been in possession of the land since then. The dispute centered on whether the land was covered by specific sections of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the land was recorded as 'Banjar' and not covered under Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. It ruled that the Aasami lease granted to the petitioner's father had expired, and thus the petitioner could not claim Bhumidhar rights. The court also noted that the petitioner had not raised the argument regarding Section 76(1)(dd) before the lower authorities.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to Bhumidhar rights over the land after the expiration of the Aasami lease and whether the impugned orders were valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Aasami lease was limited to five years and could not be inherited beyond that period. The petitioner failed to establish any legal basis for claiming Bhumidhar rights after the lease expired, and the land was correctly restored to Gram Sabha property.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the validity of the orders that restored the land to Gram Sabha property and allotted it to other respondents. The petitioner was allowed to pursue his rights through appropriate legal proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
Ashutosh Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State Respondents and Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed questioning the orders dated 16.01.2009 passed by the Respondent No. 2, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhampur, Bijnor under Section 176 (A) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 whereby and whereunder the name of the petitioner and his brothers Khalid Ahmad, Naeem Ahmad and mother Akhtari wife of Tasleem Ahmad as Aasami Patta holder (Category-3) over Plot No. 315 area 1.061 hectares lagan 109 contained in Khata No. 244 (1412 to 1417 Fasli) has been struck off and land has been restored as Gram Sabha land category 6 as also the order dated 31.05.2022 whereby and whereunder the land contained in the above mentioned Plot No. 15 has been allotted in favour of the Respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 and the allotment has also been approved.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the Plot No. 576 area 3.13 hectare and Plot No. 624 area 1.52 hectare were leased out in favour of Tasleem Ahmad the father of the petitioner under the resolution of the Gram Sabha dated 25.12.1977 and the allotment was duly approved by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhampur and the father of the petitioner was put in possession over the land allotted as is evident from ZA Form No. 58 dated 25.12.1977 filed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. The dispute in the present writ petition is confined to Plot No. 576 area 3.13 hectares. During the subsistence of the lease the consolidation operations intervened in the village and the plot number allotted changed from 576 to 315. After close of the consolidation operations the name of the father of the petitioner namely Tasleem Ahmad was reflected in CH Form-45 as Bhumidhar of Plot No. 315. A Kishan Bahi bearing No. 420855 was issued by the Tehsildar Nagina, Bijnor on the basis of the entry in CH Form-45. The father of the petitioner Tasleem Ahmad, the original allottee expired and consequent to his death the names of the petitioner, his brothers and mother were recorded over the Plot No. 315 under PA-11. The petitioner is stated to be in possession over the plot and performing agricultural operations thereon since then.
4. This Court vide order dated 22.04.2024 after recording the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State Respondents and also noting that the core question to test the validity of the impugned order would be to ascertain the nature of the land in dispute, whether it was covered by Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, as stated in the impugned order, at the time of allotment of lease in question or otherwise, as the records filed along with the writ petition did not clarify the said position, had required the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to obtain specific instructions in this regard and appraise the Court as to the exact nature of the land allotted to the father of the petitioner way back in the year 1977.
5. Pursuant to the order aforesaid, instructions have been received which are taken on record.
6. Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the basis of the instructions submits that the plot in question i.e. Plot No. 315 area 1.061 hectare was recorded as 'Banjar' Category-5' in 1359 F and was Gram Sabha Property. An Asami Patta (Category-3) was executed in favour of Sri Tasleem Ahmad late father of the petitioner Sakeel Ahmad. At the relevant time the land was recorded as 'Banjar' Category-5' and since period of lease had not expired the name of Tasleem Ahmad was recorded over the land. Tasleem Ahmad expired on 04.10.2006 and the name of the petitioner and other heirs of Tasleem Ahmad came to be recorded over the land on the basis of PA-11 entry.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner sub
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....
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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of an asami to be recorded as bhumidhar with transferable right if the land is not covered under Section 77 of the U.P. Revenue ....
Asami leases under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act automatically terminate after five years, allowing eviction without a suit under Section 202.
Asami leases under U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act automatically terminate after five years, allowing for determination without a suit or notice if expired.
Land classified as 'Johad' under Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act does not confer Bhumidhari rights, and any sale deed executed by a vendor without valid rights is void ab initio.
The judgment established that the issuance and extension of Patta, as well as the fulfillment of conditions for land ownership, are crucial in determining the rights of the petitioner.
Point of law: opinion Section 8 is not attracted in the case of leases of land where the purposes of the leases is to use the land for the purpose of agriculture, horticulture, pisciculture etc. It i....
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.
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
