Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 3272

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Smt.Basheeran Bibi - Petitioner
Vs.
The Board Of Revenue And Others - Respondent
WRIT - B No. - 14902 of 1982
Decided On : 04-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Somendra Singh
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Azad Rai

Cancellation of an agricultural lease based on a private complaint was deemed arbitrary, upholding the Additional Collector's finding of no irregularity and affirming the lease's validity.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Agriculture lease issued on 28.9.1969 was cancelled by Board of Revenue based on a private complaint, which was held as arbitrary. The Additional Collector’s findings that no irregularity existed were unrefuted by appellate authorities. (Paras 8-10)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - This Court found that there was no proper basis for reversing the Additional Collector's decision to reject the cancellation proceedings. The cancellation of lease was arbitrary and not justified. (Paras 9-11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was granted an agriculture lease on 28.9.1969. A private complaint led to the cancellation of this lease by the Board of Revenue without substantive justification, despite the Additional Collector's rejection of the complaint based on lack of irregularities.

Findings of Court:
The impugned orders of the Board of Revenue were set aside, the lease was affirmed, and authorities were directed to correct the revenue entry.

Issues: The primary legal issue was whether the cancellation of the agriculture lease was justified without substantive evidence of irregularity.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the decision of the Board of Revenue lacked proper legal basis and affirmed the validity of the lease executed in accordance with the statutes.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

In Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation/ Restoration Application Nos. 3 and 4 of 2023

1. Counsel for the petitioner-applicant is permitted to make necessary correction in the prayer clause of the application during course of the day.

2. Heard Mr. Somendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner- applicant, Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for respondent- Land Management Committee and Mr. Anjani Kumar Chaurasia, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

3. The instant applications have been filed to recall the order dated 1.3.2023 dismissing the delay condonation and restoration application for want of prosecution.

4. The explanation given for delay in filing the restoration application is satisfactory.

5. Delay in filing the restoration application is condoned.

6. The cause shown for non-appearance on the date fixed is sufficient.

7. The order dated 1.3.2023 is recalled and delay condonation application No. 1 of 2023 and restoration application No. 2 of 2023 are restored to its original numbers.

8. The applications are accordingly allowed.

In Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation/ Restoration Application Nos. 1 and 2 of 2023

1. Heard Mr. Somendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner- applicant, Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for respondent- Land Management Committee and Mr. Anjani Kumar Chaurasia, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. The instant applications have been filed to recall the order dated 11.10.2022 dismissing the writ petition for want of prosecution along with the prayer for condonation of delay.

3. The explanation given for delay in filing the restoration application is satisfactory.

4. Delay in filing the restoration application is condoned.

5. The cause shown for non-appearance on the date fixed is sufficient.

6. The order dated 11.10.2022 dismissing the writ petition for want of prosecution is recalled and writ petition is restored to its original number.

7. The applications are accordingly allowed.

In Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation/ Substitution Application Nos. 5 and 6 of 2025

1. Heard Mr. Somendra Singh, learned counsel for petitioner- applicant, Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for respondent- Land Management Committee and Mr. Anjani Kumar Chaurasia, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. The instant applications have been filed in respect to deceased sole petitioner along with the prayer for condonation of delay.

3. The explanation given for delay is satisfactory.

4. Delay in filing the substitution application is condoned.

5. Let the word deceased be mentioned against the name of sole petitioner and the name of her legal heirs as mentioned in the prayer clause be substituted as petitioner nos. 1/1 and 1/2 respectively.

6. The applications are accordingly allowed.

Order on Writ Petition

1. Heard Mr. Somendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for respondent- Land Management Committee and Mr. Anjani Kumar Chaurasia, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner- Smt. Basheeran Bibi was granted agriculture lease on 28.9.1969 in respect to plot No. 66 situated in Village Sangampur, Pargana and District Fatehpur. On the basis of the lease executed in favour of Smt. Basheeran Bibi, the possession was delivered in favour of Smt. Basheeran Bibi and the name was accordingly recorded in the records. Respondent no.2/ Jagannath filed a complaint on 7.6.1975 which was registered as case No. 198 (2) of the U.P. Zamdindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Smt. Basheeran Bibi filed her objection before the Additional Collector stating that lease was executed in accordance with the provisions of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and the Rules framed thereunder, as such, a private complaint filed by Jagannath is liable to be rejected. Additional Collector heard the matter and vid