Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
Sangeeta Chandra, Brij Raj Singh, JJ.
Ravindra Kumar Verma and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 11305 of 2018, 24819 of 2020, 304, 19485 of 2021
Decided On : 04-12-2024
JUDGMENT :
Sangeeta Chandra, J.
1. We have heard Sri R. S. Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ankit Pande alongwith Shri Manish Mani Sharma, Shri Mohammad Yusuf Siddiqui, Ms. Pooja Devi, Shri Virendra Bhatt, Shri Gajendra Yadav and Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these writ petitions learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Atul Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the N.T.P.C. and Sri Manish Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State Respondents.
2. All the four writ petitions have been taken up together as they chellenge a common order of Resumption passed by the Commisioner Faizabad Division, dated 21.02.2013 and related to land recorded as Category 6(2) Abadi and Para A-124 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Records Manual in three villages of Salahpur Rajor, Hussainpur and Hasanpur Sudhana in Tehsil- Tanda, District- Ambedkar Nagar. The said land has been resumed for the purpose of setting up second unit of 660 Megawatts of Tanda Thermal Power Plant by National Thermal Power Corporation (hereinafter referred to as NTPC).
3. For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:
| S. No. | Particulars |
| I. | Case of Petitioners in Nutshell |
| II. | Details of the Writ Petitions |
| III. | Counter-affidavits of State Government and National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) |
| IV. | Submissions of the Parties |
| V. | Statutory Provisions |
| VI. | Earlier Pronouncements |
| VII. | Points for determination: |
| (A) | What was vested in State of U.P. under Section 4(1) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act of 1950? |
| (B) | Effect of further vesting in the Gaon Sabha in terms of Section 117(1) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act of 1950 and resumption of the land by the State Government under Section 117(6) |
| (C) | To what extent benefit can be availed under Section 9 of Act 1950 |
| (D) | Meaning of word “held” given in Section 9 of the Act 1950 |
| (E) | To Whom Burden of Proof Lies for seeking Benefit of Section 9 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act |
| (F) | Relevance of Khasra (P-A-3) and Khatauni (P-A-11) prepared under Section 28 and Section 32, 33 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 and Paragraphs A-60 to A-102 and A-121 to A-160 of the U.P. Land Records Manual respectively |
| (G) | Validity of order of Resumption, dated 21.01.2013 passed under Section 117 (6) of the Act, 1950, by Commissioner Faizabad Division, over the Land recorded as Abadi under Category 6(2) of Paragraph A-124 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Records Manual |
| (H) | Government cannot and does not acquire its own land, only resumption can be done in terms of Section 117(6) of the Act, 1950 because right, title and ownership still continues with the State |
| VIII. | Applicability of Durga Narain College and Adity Kumari School v. State of U.P., 2018 (140) RD 510, in the present case |
| IX. | Doctrine of Precedents and their binding efficacy |
| X. | Conclusion |
I. Case of Petitioners in Nutshell
4. In a nutshell, the case of the petitioners is that their houses and adjacent lands had stood on the land recorded as Abadi in Category 6(2) under Para A-124 of the Uttar Pradesh Lands Records Manual since the time of their forefathers. Therefore, it would be presumed that the houses and adjacent lands were settled with the respective occupiers of the land in terms of Section 9 of the Act, 1950. The assertion of the Petitioners is that the resumption of land, virtually amounts to acquiring the land of the petitioners by an administrative order. A further assertion is that once houses of the petitioners are standing thereon since the time of their forefathers, it would be deemed that the houses and appurtenant land had been settled with the respective occupiers in terms of Section 9 of th
The court affirmed that land recorded as Abadi under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, remains vested in the State, allowing for resumption under Section 117(6) despite claims ....
Fraudulent entries in revenue records do not confer legal rights; land designated as forest is public utility land and cannot be claimed without proper legal basis.
The authority's order beyond jurisdiction is void; the previous order remains intact while directing a merits-based decision on the pending application.
Rights of gram panchayat - There is no absolute right given to Gram Panchayat with regard to ownership of property and that vesting is only confined to direction, management and control and that too,....
Occupancy tenants' rights must account for the entirety of jointly held land in resumption applications under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, ensuring equitable treatment under tenancy laws.
The court ruled that the State must provide evidence of actual possession for land recorded as surplus; mere vesting does not confer ownership rights post-repeal without taking possession.
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
