Mandatory provisions for cancellation of leases require notice and opportunity for hearing, underscoring the importance of due process.

ORDER :

In Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.6 of 2023 along with Substitution Application No.7 of 2023

1. The instant applications have been filed in respect of deceased petitioner no.32 along with application under Section 5 of LIMITATION ACT .

2. The explanation given for the condonation of delay in the affidavit is satisfactory.

3. Delay in filing the substitution application is condoned.

4. Let the word 'deceased' be mentioned against the name of petitioner no.32 and his legal heirs as mentioned in the prayer clause be substituted as petitioner nos.32/1 to 32/6.

5. The applications are accordingly, allowed.

Order On Writ Petition

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Dixit, Shive Datta Yadav and Mr. Devesh Kumar Verma, 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 reliefs:-

"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.

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

3. This Court vide order dated 25.1.2012 entertained the matter and granted interim protection to maintain status quo with rega