Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
SUNEET KUMAR, RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, JJ.
Wajahat Husain Khan and Another - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 21835, 14654 and 14657 of 2010
Decided On : 10-01-2023
Freehold - Land Rights - Government Grants Act, 1895; Nazul Policy - The court interpreted the provisions of the Government Grants Act and the Nazul Policy, emphasizing the right to freehold conversion based on prior applications and established precedents, leading to the decision to grant freehold rights to the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought conversion of their nazool land into freehold, citing delays in processing their applications compared to others who received freehold rights. They challenged a government order that affected their rights and sought relief from the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were entitled to freehold rights based on the precedent set in a similar case and the delay in processing their applications. The repeal of the Government Grants Act did not affect their rights as they applied before its repeal.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to freehold rights for their nazool land despite the repeal of the Government Grants Act and the subsequent government orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners' rights to freehold were established based on their timely applications and the principle of parity with other applicants who received freehold rights.
Result: The writ petitions are allowed, directing the Collector to convert the nazool land to freehold within two months.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Shri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri J.H. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Satyavarath Sahai, Advocate holding brief of Shri S.D. Kautilya, learned counsel for the Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj.
2. Writ Petition No. 21835 of 2010, has been filed by petitioner Wajahat Husain Khan and his wife in the year 2010, inter alia seeking following reliefs :
(ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.
(ii-A) Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the Government order dated 4.3.2014 is illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires the Constitution of India and be quashed and the respondent to commanded not to enforce same against the petitioners.
(iii) Award costs to the petitioners from the contesting respondents.''
3. By the Writ Petition No. 14654 of 2010, petitioners are seeking following reliefs :
(ii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(iii) Award full cost of the present writ petition to the petitioners.''
4. By the Writ Petition No. 14657 of 2010, petitioner is seeking following reliefs :
(ii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(iii) Award full cost of the present writ petition to the petitioners.''
5. The facts of all the aforesaid writ petitions are similar, therefore, for the sake of convenience, the facts of Writ Petition No. 21835 of 2010, is being considered for disposal of the writ petitions on the consent of the parties.
6. Pursuant to the order dated 5.1.2023, the learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions from the State Government vide communication dated 9.1.2023, is taken on record.
7. It is submitted by the learned State Counsel that the stand in the instructions is the stand of the State Government. The relevant portion of the instructions is quoted below :
8. This Court while admitting the petition issued an interim mandamus on 19.7.2010, directing the second respondent-Collector Allahabad (Prayagraj), to pass an appropriate order on the applications of the petitioner for declaring the land in question as freehold land, which is pending before him, as has been done in the case of similarly situated person in respect of the same parcel of land. The operative portion of the order is extracted below :
The court established that rights to freehold land can be claimed based on prior applications and established legal precedents, regardless of subsequent legislative changes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of freehold rights must be based on factual correctness and adherence to the legal provisions, especially in the context of land dis....
The entitlement to proprietary rights under the J&K Migrant Immovable Property Act, 1997 and the issuance of a writ of mandamus to enforce such rights.
The court established that land once acquired vests with the State, and claims of non-possession or non-payment do not negate the validity of the acquisition.
Point of law: It is settled law that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and if an order is passed in such proceedings or any writ petition thereafter challenging such orders passed in mutatio....
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
