The court affirmed the agricultural lease granted to the petitioner, ruling that cancellation was arbitrary and lacked proper individual consideration, especially given the petitioner's eligibility and community status.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Satyendra Nath Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents and Mr. Deepak Gaur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Gram Sabha.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.12.1990, petitioner along with 37 others were granted lease in respect to plot in dispute situated in Village- Panari, Pargana and Tehsil- Lalitpur, District- Lalitpur. Out of 38 lease only 14 lease were approved in which petitioner's lease was also approved. On the basis of private complaint proceedings under Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act were initiated and registered before Additional District Magistrate Lalitpur and petitioner's case was registered as Case No. 180/91-92 (State v. Rajia along with 13 others), case against respective leaseholders. Respondent No. 3/ Additional District Magistrate heard all the 14 cases for cancellation of lease and vide order dated 28.12.1992 lease of all the 14 lease holders including petitioner was cancelled. Petitioner and 13 others have filed their revision under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act before Commissioner and the revision filed by petitioner was registered as Revision No. 23/272 of 1992-93. Respondent No.2/ Additional Commissioner vide order dated 13.03.1994 made reference before respondent no.1/ Board of Revenue to set aside the order dated 28.12.1992 so far as it relates to petitioner and 7 other lease holders but in respect to remaining lease holders/ revisionist, the revisions were dismissed. Respondent No.1/ Board of Revenue heard the revisions on the basis of reference sent by respondent no.2 and vide order dated 30.04.1996 rejected the reference as well as dismissed the revision affirming the order dated 28.12.1992 passed by respondent no.3. Review petition filed by petitioner was also rejected by respondent no.1/ Board of Revenue vide order dated 03.02.2005, hence this writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

"(i) issue writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.12.92, 30.04.96 and 3.2.2005 passed by Respondent no. 3 and 1 respectively (Annexure no.8, 10 and 11).

(ii) issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents not to reject the petitioner from the land in dispute in persuance of the impugned orders."

3. This Court has entertained the writ petition on 23.09.2005 & granted interim order on 23.09.2005 which is as under:-

"Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party nos. 1 to 3 and Sri. Anuj Kumar Advocate Standing Counsel (Gaon Sabha) has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party nos. 4 and 5. They pray for and are granted six weeks time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks time thereafter is granted to file rejoinder affidavit to learned Counsel for petitioner.

Till further orders of the Court, petitioners shall not be ejected from the land allotted to her.

4. In pursuance of the order dated 29.03.2005, Gaon Sabha has filed counter affidavit and petitioner has filed her rejoinder affidavit.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that agricultural lease were granted in favour of petitioner along with others in the year 1990 after following the due procedure as prescribed under the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and the rules framed thereunder. He further submitted that petitioner's lease was approved also along with 13 others. He further submitted that private complaint has been filed in respect to the lease executed in favour of the petitioner along with others and the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act have been registered and the lease of the petitioner along with 13 others have been cancelled in arbitrary manner vide order dated 28.12.1992. He further submitted that petitioner along with others challenged the order dated 28.12.1992 passed by Additional Distri