Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2091

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.
Nirmala Devi - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26762 Of 2023
Decided On : 28-11-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Vishal Khandelwal.
For the Respondents: C.S.C., Anil Kumar, Avinash Chandra Srivastava and Satish Kumar Pandey.

The principle of limitation is fundamental in administrative proceedings, and actions taken after substantial delays are unsustainable under law.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Section 128 - Cancellation of allotment and lease - Writ petition filed against orders of District Magistrate and Additional Commissioner dismissing revision for cancellation of lease after 39 years - Limitation period of five years for such proceedings is mandatory and jurisdictional - Impugned orders set aside as unsustainable. (Paras 55, 56)

(B) Jurisdiction - Power under Article 226 of the Constitution - Writ court may interfere in cases of infringement of legal rights - Impugned order treated as interlocutory when it determined the issue of limitation, which goes to the root of the matter. (Paras 52, 54)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash orders for cancellation of lease granted in 1979, initiated after 39 years based on a complaint, asserting the proceedings were barred by time and lacked jurisdiction. (Paras 2, 6, 12)

Findings of Court:
The court held the proceedings initiated after 39 years were not maintainable, reiterating the mandatory limitation period under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code. (Paras 55, 56)

Issues: Whether the proceedings for cancellation initiated after 39 years were maintainable under the U.P. Revenue Code, and whether the orders were jurisdictionally sound. (Paras 25, 55)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the limitation period of five years is jurisdictional; hence, proceedings initiated beyond this period are unsustainable. (Paras 55, 56)

Result: Writ petition allowed, and the impugned orders set aside. (Paras 56)

JUDGMENT :

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.) :

Heard Sri Vishal Khandelwal, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Awadesh Kumar Patel, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Shri A.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the Land Management Committee (respondent No. 4) and Sri Satish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29.5.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Agra Division, Agra (respondent No. 2) dismissing the Revision having Case No. 02238 of 2018 as well as the order dated 14.9.2018 passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, Mainpuri (respondent No. 3), by means of which the Collector (respondent No. 3), took the decision to suo moto proceed for cancellation of the allotment and lease in Case No. 1858 of 2018.

3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court proceeds to decide the present Writ Petition at the admission stage itself.

4. The facts in a nutshell, as are available on record before this Court, are that by a Resolution passed by the Land Management Committee (respondent No. 4) in its meeting held on 19.5.1979, lease was granted in favour of 150 persons including one Naresh Singh, son of Munshi Lal. In pursuance of the said lease, plot No. 60-M ad-measuring area 0.202-hectare, plot No. 360 ad-measuring area 0.526 hectare and plot No. 363 ad-measuring area 0.405 hectare were allotted in favour of the said Naresh Singh and accordingly his name was entered in the revenue records.

5. Subsequently, the aforesaid Naresh Singh transferred the said plots in favour of the petitioner whereby the petitioner was delivered possession of the same and subsequently, her name was recorded in the revenue records as 'bhumidhar with transferable rights'.

6. After a lapse of about 39 years, on an application/complaint dated 21.9.2017 moved by Pradeep Kumar (respondent No. 5); proceeding for cancellation of allotment and lease, under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, was instituted against the aforesaid Naresh Singh and also against the petitioner being the transferee of Naresh Singh. The said proceeding was registered as Case No. 01858 of 2018.

7. The petitioner alongwith the aforesaid Naresh Singh preferred preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the said proceeding on the ground of limitation. A reply to the notice was also filed by the petitioner on 29.5.2019, asserting therein that the aforesaid proceeding is not legally tenable; firstly, for the reason that the same is barred by time having been initiated after a lapse of about 39 years and secondly, the complainant/applicant (respondent No. 5) was a minor at the time when the allotment in question was made in the year 1979 and being a minor, he was not eligible for the grant of the said lease in his favour, as such, he does not fall within the category of an 'aggrieved person'. Further, there was no illegality or infirmity in the allotment in question in favour of Naresh Singh and the same was made perfectly in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under law, after due approval of the resolution and the names in Aakar Pattra 57-kha, as has been reported by the Tehsil authorities and is available in the concerned Records. As such, the proceeding under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are not at all maintainable and is liable to be dropped.

8. The District Magistrate/Collector, Mainpuri (respondent No. 3) called for an inquiry report and in pursuance of the same the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned got the said inquiry conducted through the Tehsildar and forwarded the same to the Collector (respondent No. 3) on 8.12.2017. On the basis of the same, the Collector (respondent No. 3) proceeded with the aforesaid proceeding and passed the order dated 14.9.2018, categorically holding therein that although, the said proceeding is '