Back
2024 Supreme(All) 2228
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
Maiku @ Maiku Lal – Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Director o Consolidation, Ayodhya and Others – Respondents
Writ (B) No. 16 of 2024
Decided On : 09-01-2024
Important Points
Subject
Land Law - Lease and Tenancy
Act Referred
UTTAR PRADESH CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS ACT : S.133(c), S.132, S.133(a), S.194, S.195, S.197, S.198, S.198(4), S.202, S.48
UTTAR PRADESH CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS RULES : R.172, R.174, R.175, R.176, R.176(a)
UTTAR PRADESH IMPOSITION OF CEILING ON LAND HOLDINGS ACT : S.27(3)
UTTAR PRADESH LAND REVENUE ACT : S.33, S.39
UTTAR PRADESH REVENUE CODE : S.76, S.76(1)(d)(d), S.76(d)(d), S.77
UTTAR PRADESH ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT : S.122(b)(4)(f), S.132, S.197, S.198(4), S.198(9), S.212(a)
UTTAR PRADESH ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS RULES : R.176(a), R.176(a)(1), R.176(a)(2)
Headnote
(B) Natural Justice - The court held that while notice is generally required before lease determination, it is not necessary if the lease has expired, as the lessee has no rights to defend. (Paras 21-22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the cancellation of their asami lease, which was claimed to have been granted in 1975 but was determined by law to have expired after five years. The petitioner argued that they were wrongfully evicted without notice.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the asami lease automatically expired after five years, and the Assistant Collector had the authority to determine the lease without a suit.
Issues: The main issues were whether the asami lease could be determined without a suit and the necessity of notice before such determination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that asami leases are limited to five years and can be determined without a suit once expired, affirming that the Assistant Collector must provide notice before determination.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Nazim Ali Siddique
For the Respondent: Mohan Singh
JUDGMENT :
SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
1. Heard Sri Nazim Ali Siddique, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs:
“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya in Revision No. 2456 of 2023 U/s 48 U.P.C.H. Act Computerized Case No. 2022540423000000174, Maiku vs. Gram Sabha and others and the judgment and order dated 25.05.2023 passed by the Consolidation Officer Rudauli, District Ayodhya in Case No. 119/Bajdayra/2023, State Versus Maiku as contained in Annexure nos. 1 and 2 respectively to this writ petition.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 to expunge the forged entry of the alleged order dated 29.03.2005 passed in Case No. 465 of 2005 and correct the record within the time bound period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature mandamus thereby restraining the respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question in any manner whatsoever.”
3. The claim of the petitioner is based upon the Asami lease/patta executed in the year 1975. Admittedly, at relevant time, the land in issue i.e. Gata No. 982 Kha (old Gata No. 456/1-0-0) and Gata No. 1149 (old Gata No. 606/1-5-10) situated in Village-Jakhauli, Pargana and Tehsil-Rudauli, District-Faizabad (now Ayodhya) was Varg-3 land and during consolidation proceedings, it was recorded as khalihan and pasture land, respectively, in the revenue records.
4. The law related to rights based upon Asami lease/patta is settled, as would appear from the following judgments:
(1) In the case of Hari Ram v. Collector, 2004 SCC Online All 838, this Court observed as under:
“12. Section 133A of the Act mentions four clauses of asami. Asami leases in the present writ petitions are referable to Section 133(c) which is with regard to persons who have been admitted by the Land Management Committee as a lessee of land described in Section 132. Chapter VIII of the Act deals with the tenure. Section 184 provides that an asami may surrender his holding by giving a notice in writing to the Land Management Committee. Section 186 deals with abandonment. Section 190 deals with extinction of the interest of bhumidhar with non-transferable rights. Sub-Section (2) of Section 190 also provides that provisions of Sub-Section (1) shall apply mutatis mutandis to asamis also. Section 190 is extracted below:
“190. Extinction of the interest of a (bhumidhar with non-transferable rights):
(1) Subject to the provisions of (Section 172), the interest of a (bhumidhar with non-transferable rights) in a holding or any part thereof shall be extinguished:
(a) when he dies having no heir entitled to inherit in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(b) when the holding has been declared as abandoned in accordance with the provisions of Section 186.
(c) when he surrenders his holding or part thereof.
(cc) when the holding or part thereof has been transferred, let out or used in contravention of the provisions of this Act.
(d) when the land comprised in the holding has been acquired under any law for the time being in force relating to the acquisition of land.
(e) when he has been ejected in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(f) when he has been deprived of possession and his right to recover possession is barred by limitation.
13. Section 191 provides that extinction of the right, title and interest of a bhumidhar shall operate to extinguish the interest of any asami holding under him. Section 192 provides one more contingency in which interest of an asami in his holding shall be determined. Section 194 provides that Land Management Committee is entitled
