The cancellation of a lease without affording a proper hearing violates principles of natural justice, warranting judicial intervention and remand for fresh consideration.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Re: Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.7 of 2023

The instant application has been filed in respect of deceased petitioner no.2.

Application is within limitation.

Let the word 'deceased' be mentioned against the name of petitioner no.2 and the names of legal heirs as mentioned in the prayer clause be substituted as petitioner nos. 2/1 and 2/5 respectively in the array of the parties.

The substitution application is, accordingly, allowed.

Order on Writ Petition

Heard Mr. Manish Dev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Anjani Kumar Chaurasia, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4, Land Management Committee.

2. Brief facts of the case are that residential lease was executed in favour of petitioners along with others on 18.8.1990 which was approved on 29.1.1991. In pursuance lease executed on 8.8.1990/ 29.1.1991 possession was delivered to petitioners along with other lease holders. Proceeding under Section 115-P of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was registered before the Collector as case No. 42 of 1994 and the same was heard by Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue who vide order dated 8.5.2001 cancelled the lease executed on 18.8.1990/ 29.1.1991. Petitioners challenged the order dated 18.5.2001 through revision before Commissioner along with the prayer for condonation of delay. Learned Commissioner entertained the matter and stayed the operation of impugned order dated 18.5.2001 till time bound period but on next date interim order was not extended hence petitioners filed revision before Board of Revenue which was registered as revision No. 82 of 2007- 08. Board of Revenue vide order dated 8.7.2008 remanded the matter before Commissioner to decide the pending revision within period of three months and parties were directed to maintain status quo till then. After remand the revision was dismissed for non-prosecution before Commissioner vide order dated 6.8.2008. On 1.9.2008, petitioners filed restoration/ recall application to recall the order dated 6.8.2008 which was again dismissed for non prosecution on 22.6.2009. Petitioners again filed restoration application on 24.12.2010 along with the prayer for condonation of delay which was dismissed by Commissioner vide order dated 8.6.2011. Petitioners filed a Writ C No. 57670 of 2011 challenging the order dated 8.6.2011 which was dismissed vide order dated 30.9.2011 on the ground of alternative remedy of revision before Board of Revenue accordingly petitioners filed a revision under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act before Board of Revenue which was dismissed vide order dated 8.12.2011. Hence this writ petition for the following reliefs:-

" (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 8.12.2011 and 8.6.2011 and 22.6.2009 and dated 6.8.2008 and order dated 18.5.2001 passed by respondents 1,2,3 respectively.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus quashed the wholly collective patta cancellation proceedings."

3. This Court entertained the matter on 4.1.2012 and passed the following order:-

"Petitioners were allotted Gaon Sabha land as per the resolution of the Gaon Sabha which was also approved but the said allotment was cancelled vide order dated 18.5.2001. Petitioners revision against the said cancellation order has been dismissed in default. Their restoration application as well as further revision thereto has also been dismissed.

Learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 to 3 and Sri. Anuj Kumar who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 4 are allowed two weeks time to seek instructions in the matter.

List immediately thereafter.

Till the next date of listing, status quo as on date shall be maintained with regard to land in dispute."

4. In spite of the repeated time granted by this Court to the State and Gaon Sabha/ Land Management