Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 2285

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Shyam Bihari Yadav And Others – Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 2885 of 2023
Decided On : 19-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay
For the Respondent: C.S.C.

Public interest litigation challenging agricultural lease was dismissed as it was barred by limitation, emphasizing that limitation is a fundamental aspect of legal proceedings.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 198(4), 198(6), and 333 - Public interest litigation challenging agricultural lease executed in 1994 - Cancellation proceedings initiated were barred by limitation as per statutory provisions - Court held that the public interest litigation is an abuse of process of law. (Paras 3, 10, 12, 15)

(B) Limitation - The court emphasized that the question of limitation can be raised at any stage and is fundamental to the proceedings. (Paras 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the validity of an agricultural lease executed in 1994, asserting that the cancellation proceedings were initiated collusively and without following proper procedures.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the cancellation proceedings were barred by limitation and thus dismissed the public interest litigation.

Issues: The main issues included the legality of the agricultural lease and the applicability of limitation provisions under the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the public interest litigation was misconceived as the cancellation proceedings were time-barred, reinforcing the principle that limitation is a critical aspect of legal proceedings.

Result: The public interest litigation is dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead the Gaon Sabha as respondent no.5 and shall serve the copy upon Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for respondent-Gaon Sabha.

2. Heard Mr. R.C. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.5, Gaon Sabha.

3. Brief facts of the case are that lease for agriculture purpose was executed in favour of private respondents on 5.6.1994 in respect to plot No. 73/ 0.042, 168/ 0.055, 271/ 0.272, 280/ 0.111. Proceeding for cancellation of lease executed on 5.6.1994 under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act initiated by one Sommar was dismissed vide order dated 11.9.2003. Sommar challenged the order dated 11.9.2003 through revision under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act before Commissioner which was partly allowed by Commissioner vide order dated 19.11.2004 cancelling lease of Durgawati for part of the area. A restoration application dated 7.6.2019 filed by D.G.C. (Revenue) after 14 years 6 months against the order dated 19.11.2004 was rejected by Commissioner vide order dated 19.1.2023 hence this public interest litigation on behalf of petitioners being resident of Village for the following reliefs:-

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents concern to remove the illegal encroachment to the respondent no.4 on the Gata Nos. 73, 168, Gata Nos. 269 and 280 total area 480 kadi granted patta in 1994 in the name of Smt. Durgawati Devi wife of Sarju resident of Village Pyarepur, Tehsil Nizamabad, District Azamgarh."

4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that agricultural lease was executed in illegal manner in the year 1994. He further submitted that cancellation proceeding was initiated in collusive manner and the illegal lease granted in favour of the lease holders have been affirmed. He submitted that the instant public interest litigation has been filed challenging the orders passed in the proceeding under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. He further submitted that without following the procedure prescribed under the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and the rules framed thereunder at the relevant point of time, the lease deed was executed, as such, the same should be cancelled in the public interest. He further placed the judgment of this Court reported in 2000 (0) Supreme (All) 1084 Mathai Lal Dube Vs. District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar. He further placed the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1982 SC 149 Supreme Court S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India and AIR 1991 SC 1902 Bangalore Medical Trust Vs. B.S. Muddappa and others in order to demonstrate if the jurisdiction has been exercised in the illegal manner, then the orders as well as the proceeding can be annulled at any point of time.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.5/ Gaon Sabha submitted that instant public interest litigation is not maintainable.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that agricultural lease was executed in the year 1994. There is also no dispute about the fact that earlier cancellation proceeding under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was initiated in which the lease granted in th