Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 2285

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, JJ.
Sri Krishna And Another - Appellants
Versus
Union Of India And 5 Others - Respondents
Writ C No.28104 of 2024, WRIT - C No. - 33280 of 2024, WRIT - C No. - 33439 of 2024
Decided on : 03-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Suresh Singh
For the Respondent: A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Subodh Kumar

Cancellation of land leases must adhere to statutory limitation periods; proceedings initiated beyond these limits are illegal and violate principles of natural justice.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 198 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The petitioners sought compensation for acquired lands. The Collector's cancellation of agricultural leases was deemed illegal due to lack of jurisdiction and limitation. (Paras 3, 11, 23)

(B) Limitation - The power to cancel allotments is subject to strict limitations; proceedings initiated after the statutory period are barred. The notice for cancellation must be issued within five years of allotment. (Paras 12, 18)

(C) Natural Justice - The cancellation proceedings were found to be arbitrary and without proper notice. (Paras 9, 23)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners were granted agricultural leases in 2003, but their allotments were cancelled in 2015 due to alleged irregularities. The cancellation was challenged and subsequently reversed, but new proceedings were initiated to cancel the leases again in 2024.

Findings of Court:
The cancellation proceedings were barred by limitation and thus declared illegal. Respondents ordered to pay compensation as per the award.

Issues: Whether the petitioners can be denied compensation based on a cancellation order issued after the award was declared.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the cancellation proceedings were invalid due to being initiated beyond the statutory limitation period, violating principles of natural justice.

Result: Petitions allowed, compensation ordered to be paid within eight weeks.

Table of Content
1. consolidation of petitions with similar facts and issues. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. notification and documentation requirements for compensation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. dispute over the validity of agricultural leases and cancellation proceedings. (Para 7 , 8)
4. arguments regarding jurisdiction and mala fide actions in cancellation. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. interpretation of statutory provisions on cancellation of allotments. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
6. limitation period for cancellation proceedings. (Para 17 , 18)
7. delays in cancellation proceedings and the impact of the upzalr act repeal. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
8. ruling on the illegality of the cancellation order and entitlement to compensation. (Para 22 , 23)
9. final order granting compensation and damages. (Para 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

1. The present batch of petitions involves similar facts and legal issues, as well as the relief sought, and therefore they have been heard together and are being decided by a common order and judgment.

2. The prayer made in all the petitions is for issuance of writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to release compensation amount for the acquired lands belonging to the petitioners in pursuance of the land acquisition proceedings conducted by the respondents.

3. It is admitted by the parties that the petitioners were granted agricultural lease of different parcels of land admeasuring 0.2000/0.3000 hectare, situated in Village Maniyapur, Pargana and Tehsil Narwal, District Kanpur Nagar, on 31.3.2003, after obtaining approval from the competent authority as per the law prevailing at the relevant time. Based on the same, the names of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue records. On 16.9.2009, a complaint was made by one Ram Khilawan, alleging irregularities in the allotment proceedings. It was registered as Case No. 18 of 2009-2010, under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short ‘UPZALR Act’) in the court of Collector, Kanpur Nagar. In the said proceedings, vide order of Collector dated 29.6.2015, the allotment dated 31.3.2003 was cancelled, holding that various irregularities were committed in granting the patta. The order of Collector dated 29.6.2015 was challenged by the allottees in Revision No. 134 of 2015, filed under Section 333 of UPZALR Act, read with the provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act. The revision was allowed by Additional Commissioner by order dated 26.10.2016, holding that the power to cancel the leases was not with the Collector, but with the Assistant Collector of the Sub Division Incharge. The order dated 26.10.2016 allowing the revision was not challenged by any party and thus it became final.

4. On 11.04.2022, the respondents issued a notification under Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It was followed by notification under Section 19 dated 20.12.2022, and award dated 2.3.2023. Before declaring the award, notices were issued to the petitioners on 28.2.2023, intimating them that award would be declared on 2.3.2023 and they were required to submit necessary documents (a notary affidavit, along with passport size photograph, a revenue ticket, bank passbook, PAN Card, Aadhar Card, certified copy of khatauni and share certificate from Tehsildar) to facilitate the release of compensation amount in their favour.

5. Recently, on 6.3.2024, the respondents issued notices to the petitioners and other allottees, stating that a report dated 23.03.2023 has been submitted by Tehsildar for re-initiating proceedings for cancellation of allotments dated 31.03.2003. The petitioners were required to submit their reply by the next date, i.e. 18.3.2024, failing which, proceedings would be held ex-parte.

6. The case of the petitioners is that they have submitted the required documents for release of compensation in terms of award dated 02.03.2023, but they have not been paid compensation and therefore,