SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(All) 72

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD 
SHEKHAR B. SARAF, VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT,J.
 
Deepak Kumar Verma – Appellant 
versus
Union Of India And 2 Others – Respondent 
WRIT - C No. - 3824 of 2025 
Decided on : 05-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Awadhesh Kumar Malviya
For the Respondent:  A.S.G.I.,Devi Shanker Shukla,Gaurav Kumar Chand

A valid lease for property must be executed by all co-owners, particularly when the property is under dispute and partition has not been completed.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition for quashing cancellation of candidature for retail outlet dealership - Candidature cancelled due to non-execution of lease deed by all co-owners of the land - The petitioner's application was rejected based on findings that the land was under dispute and partition was pending - The cancellation was made in adherence to dealership selection guidelines. (Paras 1, 4, 8)

(B) Legal Requirements for Lease - A valid lease must be executed by all co-owners of the property, especially when the property is under dispute and partition has not been completed. (Paras 5, 6, 7)

(C) Judicial Review - The court held that the decision of the respondent authority was based on evidence and did not display any illegality or arbitrariness. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for a retail outlet dealership but was rejected due to the land lease not being executed by all co-owners, with ongoing disputes and pending partition.

Findings of Court:
The respondent authority's decision to cancel the candidature was justified as the lease deed was not executed by all co-owners, and the land was still under dispute.

Issues: The main issues were whether the cancellation of candidature was justified and if the lease deed was valid without the signatures of all co-owners.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lease must involve all co-owners, and the respondent's decision was supported by sufficient evidence and legal guidelines.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned order dated 28.12.2024 passed by respondent no. 3 by which candidature of the petitioner for retail outlet dealership was cancelled.

2. Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Malviya, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Gaurav Kumar Chand, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, Sri Devi Shanker Shukla, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 and perused the record.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for retail outlet dealership in pursuance of advertisement dated 28.06.2023. The petitioner has fulfilled all the requirement as per the advertisement, but his candidature has been rejected by the respondent authority merely on the ground that lease deed was not executed by all the co-owners. The lease deed dated 23.09.2023 executed by Raj Narayan and legal heirs of late Lal Bahadur Singh in favour of petitioner for 35 x 35 meter land (total area 1225 sq. meter) from Arazi No. 485 & 488 which fulfills land requirement.

4. We have gone through the impugned order dated 28.12.2024. The respondent authority had cancelled the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that the land was not leased out by all the co-owners. The relevant extract of the order dated 28.12.2024 is reproduced herein below :-

"Complaint 1:-

Land offered by the selected applicant Sh. Deepak Kumar Verma has not taken the land on lease from all the co-owners;

After investigation of complaint, findings are as below :-

1. As per the application and khatauni submitted by you, the offered land, Gata No. 485 & 488, Village Piratipur, Tehsil & District Ghazipur, is co-owner by Sh. Raj Narayan S/o Kuvar and Sh. Lal Bahadur S/o Kuvar.

Sh. Lal Bahadur S/o Kuvar has passed away, and the following legal heirs' names have been updated in the khatauni :-

Smt. Vimla Devi w/o Lal Bahadure Singh Shri Manish Kumar Singh S/oLal bahadur Singh Shri Uday Pratap Singh S/o Lal Bahadur Singh Shri Subhasg Singh S/o Lal Bahadur Singh

2. However, as per the complaint, after verifying the khatauni for Gata No. 485 & 488, it is observed that additional persons were listed as co-owners. A couple of co- owners have also submitted affidavits stating that they are co-owners, and the property division is still pending. The additional names are as follows :-

Shri Ajay S/o Ram Ashish Shri Vijay S/o Ram Ashish Shri Sanjay S/o Ram Ashish Shri Mrityunjay S/o Ram Ashish

3. Based on documents collected from the applicant and the complaint, and after due verification, it is observed that the partition of the offered land was not carried out before the submission of the application for the dealership. The landowners who leased the land to the applicant had applied for the partition of the land at the SDM, Sadar, Ghazipur, under online case No. T202414291000249 dated 15.12.2023.

4. As per the SDM order dated 28.06.2024, it is clear that the partition of the land has not yet been completed.

5. The other co-owners of the land, including Shri Vijay Singh, filed a case in the Civil Judge Jr. Division Court, Ghazipur, which was registered as OS No. 185/2024 dated 11.03.2024, against Shri Manish Singh and others, including the applicant. The case raises objections to the construction of the petrol pump, as the partition among all co-owners is still pending.

6. Opinion sought from our panel advocate, Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Ghazipur. As per his opinion in the letter dated 25.07.2024, no further process should be carried out as the offered land is under dispute among the co-owners, and the partition has not been completed. The court has scheduled the next hearing for 20.08.2024. Additionally, the advocate's report dated 25.07.2024 and a copy of the plaint for suit No. 185/2024 pending before CJ(SD), Ghazipur, indicate that the lease deed has not been executed by all the co-owners who inherited the land from a common ancestor. No partition of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top