Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 3207

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Visharam Singh and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (B) No. 15683 of 2012
Decided On : 10-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ayub Khan, Shive Datta Yadav, Krishna Mishra
For the Respondent: Suresh C. Dwivedi

The statutory requirement of notice before lease cancellation is crucial; failing to comply invalidates such actions, reinforcing principles of due process.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 198(5) and 198(6) - Agriculture lease cancellation - Petitioners granted agriculture lease in 1975 - Impugned orders for cancellation of lease found to violate mandatory provisions of notice and opportunity of hearing - Previous court ruling on similar facts set aside cancellations - Writ petition allowed, leases affirmed. (Paras 1, 8, 11, 13)

(B) Legal procedure - Requirement of notice - Cancellation of leases demands adherence to statutory notice provisions, failure to comply constitutes grounds for quashing cancellation. (Paras 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners were granted agriculture leases in 1975, which were later cancelled under orders deemed improper due to violating statutory notice requirements. Petitioners were not parties in the cancellation proceedings and contended for rights similar to those in a previous case resolved favorably.

Findings of Court:
Authority failed to provide due process in cancelling leases, resulting in the annulment of all impugned orders against the petitioners.

Issues: The main issues were the procedure followed for cancellation of leases and the applicability of previous court rulings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the lack of proper notice constituted a breach of mandatory requirements under the relevant Act, and that similar cases should yield consistent outcomes in the legal system.

Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned orders set aside and leases affirmed.

Table of Content
1. details on agricultural lease grants and challenges. (Para 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding lease eligibility. (Para 5 , 6)
3. court's reasoning on due process for lease cancellation. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. final ruling on the validity of leases. (Para 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Dixit and Mr. Shive Datta Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Hari Narayan Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.5, Land Management Committee.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners were granted agriculture lease by resolution dated 2.12.1975 and 8.12.1975 passed by Land Management Committee. The aforementioned lease were approved in accordance with the provisions of Act and Rules framed thereunder. Petitioners remained in possession over the allotted land and names were also recorded in the revenue record. One Raja Ram filed a case No. 219 of 1976 against Rameshwar Dayal and others for cancellation of lease on the ground that lessee were not eligible for allotment. Additional Collector vide order dated 16.7.1982 canceling the lease of Rameshwar Dayal. Respondent no.4, Land Management Committee filed an application under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act") against Ram Prasad and Banwari sons of Angn, Mithu Lal and Sita Ram. The aforementioned case No. 219 of 1978 was decided by Additional Collector vide order dated 6.6.1983 cancelled the lease granted on the basis of resolution dated 2.2.1975 and 8.2.1975. Petitioners were neither party in case No. 219 of 1978 nor in Case No. 174 of 1976. Petitioners along with others have filed revision No. 242 of 1984-85 before the Commissioner against the order dated 6.6.1983 which was heard and dismissed by Additional Commissioner Allahabad Division Allahabad vide order dated 17.2.1990. Order dated 17.2.1990 was challenged by petitioners along with others before Board of Revenue by way of revision No. 33 of 1989-90 which was dismissed vide order dated 26.3.1997. One Bankey Lal who was one of the applicant along with petitioners filed a Writ C No. 16681 of 1997 before this Court against the impugned order dated 6.6.1983, 17.2.1990 and 26.3.1997 which was allowed vide order dated 20.7.2011 quashing the orders dated 6.6.1983, 17.2.1990 and 26.3.1997. Hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioners for the following relief:-

"i. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 6.6.1983 (Annexure No.2) passed by the Upper Collector, Etawah, respondent no.4 in suit no.174 of 1976, order dated 17.2.1990 (Annexure No.3) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, respondent no.3, in Revision No.242 of 1984-85 as well as the impugned order dated 26.3.1997 (Annexure No.4) passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad, respondent no.2, in Revision no.33 of 1989-90.

ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give same relief to the petitioners as has been granted in the writ petition no.16681 of 1997."

3. This Court vide order dated 26.4.2012 entertained the matter and granted interim protection to maintain status quo with regard to possession over the land in question, which runs as follows:

"It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the facts of this case are identical to the case of Writ Petition No. 3156 of 2012 and Writ Petition No. 4560 of 2012.

A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel by submitting that in the earlier writ petitions, the petitioners in the writ petition were party in the revision and the petitioners, herein, were not parties in the revision, therefore, the facts of this case are not identical, and the petitioners are straight away approaching this Court without availing the remedy of revision.

It is stated in paragrap