Back
2024 Supreme(All) 1902
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
Matbunnisa - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. - Respondents
WRIT - C NO. - 1081 OF 2024.
Decided On : 07-02-2024
For the Petitioner: Faiz Ahmad Khan
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta
The court affirmed that statutory procedures must be strictly followed in granting leases, and failure to do so justifies cancellation.
Headnote:(A) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 198(4) and 333 - Cancellation of plantation lease - The procedure prescribed in Government Order dated 30.12.1985 was not followed in granting the lease, leading to its cancellation by the Collector - The principle that if a statute prescribes a manner for action, it must be followed is reaffirmed. (Paras 8, 10, 14)
(B) Legal Procedure - It is well settled that if a particular thing is to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner alone. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the cancellation of her plantation lease by the Collector, asserting she had planted trees on the land since the allotment. The Collector found the allotment process violated the prescribed procedure.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Collector's decision, confirming that the proper procedure for granting the lease was not adhered to.
Issues: The main issues were whether the procedure for granting the plantation lease was followed and the validity of the Collector's cancellation of the lease.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the failure to follow the prescribed procedure for granting the plantation lease justified its cancellation, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to statutory requirements.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Heard Sri. Faiz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4/Gaon Sabha concerned.
2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 08.01.2010 passed by the respondent No. 3/Collector, District Balrampur in Case No. 59 instituted under Section 198(4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short "Act of 1950") as also the order dated 02.01.2024 passed by the respondent No. 2/Commissioner Devi Patan Manda Gonda in Revision No. 00034/2010, Computerized Case No. C201008000000034 (Matbunnisa v. State of U.P.) instituted under Section 333 of the Act of 1950. The petitioner has also sought the consequential relief.
3. Brief facts of the case, which are relevant for the purposes of disposal of this petition, are to the effect that Lekhpal of the area concerned i.e. Village Nanhuwapur, Tehsil- Tulsipur, District- Balrampur suo-moto prepared a report with regard to Gata No. 398M/0.320 Hectare, Gata No. 1168/0.084 Hectare, Gata No. 1435/0.104 Hectare, Gata No. 1287M/0.057 Hectare recorded as Naveen Parti in revenue records as also in relation to Gata No. 1387/0.112 Hectare and Gata No. 1398M/0.275 Hectare recorded as Banjar in revenue records and recommended the name of three persons namely Sita Devi w/o Vishwa Nath, Sansaarmadi s/o Bhondu and Matbunnisa/petitioner w/o Saide for providing plantation lease (). This report also says that Gram Pradhan is in enmity with these persons, as such, Gram Sabha has not made any proposal in this regard.
4. The aforesaid report of Lekhpal was placed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (S.D.M.) concerned, who approved this suo-moto report of revenue official/Lekhpal on 12.01.2008 and in terms of this approval, patta was granted to the petitioner.
5. As per petitioner's case, she is in possession of the land in issue since then and at relevant point of time, she planted 100 trees of teak and 10 trees of mango and to establish this fact, Khasra of 1416 fasli has been placed on record by way of a supplementary affidavit filed in the Court today, which is taken on record.
6. At this stage, on the basis of instructions received, learned State counsel says that the contention of petitioner's counsel is not correct as in fact there are 16 trees of Indian rosewood and 18 trees of teak over the land in issue.
7. In regard to aforesaid allotment in favour of petitioner, one Seema Khan (the then village Pradhan) instituted a case under Section 198(4) of the Act of 1950 registered as Case No. 59, in which, proper opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner, as appears from the impugned order dated 08.01.2010. To clarify this aspect of the case, it is to be noted that the petitioner appeared before the Collector/District Magistrate, Balrampur in the case No. 59 and filed his objection and learned counsel for the parties were also heard before passing the impugned order dated 08.01.2010 in the said case by the Collector/District Magistrate, Balrampur and upon due consideration of the facts of the case, the respondent No. 3/Collector/District Magistrate, Balrampur passed the order dated 08.01.2010, whereby, he cancelled allotment in favour of the petitioner. The relevant portion of the order dated 08.01.2010 on reproduction reads as under:-
8. It would be relevant to indicate that plantation lease () should be granted/provided strictly in terms of procedure prescribed in Government Order (G.O.) dated 30.12.1985. This aspect has not been disputed by the petitioner. This G.O. provides procedure for allotment of plantation lease (). Relevant portion of which is quoted hereunder:-
9. Admittedly, in the instant case, the proposal for plantation lease () was not forwarded by the Village level Committee indicated in the G.O. dated 30.12.1985, to the concerned officer and directly the Lek
