Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 3302

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Lallan Upadhyay And 3 Others – Petitioner
Versus
Board Of Revenue U.P. At Prayagraj And 3 – Respondent
WRIT - B No. - 314 of 2025
Decided on : 24-02-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:- Ram Kishore Pandey, Vivek Kumar Tripathi
For the Respondent:- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.

Court affirmed that without a valid lease, petitioners are not entitled to fisheries rights, allowing for ejectment and damages under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Sections 136 and 210 - Writ petition dismissed against order of ejectment and damages imposed on petitioners for unauthorized occupation of a pond without a valid lease - The Court affirmed findings that no fisheries lease was executed and that petitioners misused legal processes. (Paras 1, 6, 10, 12)

(B) Legal Misuse - The court emphasized that petitioners continued to occupy the land illegally under the guise of a non-existent lease, warranting the imposition of damages. (Paras 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners claimed fisheries rights based on a lease from 1987, which the authorities denied, asserting no lease was executed in favor of the petitioners or their father. An ejectment order and damages totaling Rs.1,01,68,000/- were upheld by the court.

Findings of Court:
Court found no merit in the petitioners' claims, with affirmed findings of fact supporting the legality of ejectment and damages based on misuse of law.

Issues: Whether the petitioners held a valid lease, and the legality of the ejectment order and damages imposed.

Ratio Decidendi: The absence of a valid lease supported the imposition of damages, with no scope for judicial intervention under Article 226 given the factual findings.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

In Re: Civil Misc. Amendment Application No. 1 of 2025

1. In view of the facts mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the application is allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioners is permitted to make necessary amendment in the writ petition.

Order on Writ Petition

1. Heard Mr. Ram Kishore Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.4- Gram Sabha and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that according to the petitioner, he was granted fisheries lease on 8.9.1987 in respect to the pond, situated over plot nos.146, 149 and 179, for a period of 10 years i.e from 8.9.1987 to 8.9.1997 but state/gram sabha is denying the execution of any lease in favour of father of petitioner No- 2 to 4. The Land Management Committee interfered with the right of the petitioner for fisheries, hence, petitioner filed Writ Petition No.38365 of 1995. This Court vide order dated 14.5.1995, directed the authority concerned, not to dispossess the petitioner from the plot with respect to his fisheries right. The petitioner filed an application before the District Magistrate on 19.11.1997 and prayed for extension of the fisheries lease for a further period of 10 years. The Addl. District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) submitted a report dated 26.9.1997 and recommended for extending the fisheries lease in favour of the petitioner for a further period of 10 years. The petitioner alleged that he had deposited the requisite amount from time to time which was even accepted by the Land Management Committee without any objection and allowed the petitioner to carry out fisheries in the pond in question. Petitioner further alleged that the local person started interference in the fisheries right of the petitioner with respect to the pond in question, hence, petitioner filed an Original Suit No.478/2016 for permanent injunction in which an interim injunction was granted by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandauli on 24.11.2016. The interim injunction granted by the civil court, according to the petitioner, is in operation, but a complaint was filed by one Mangla Upadhyay of the same village, accordingly, a report was submitted before the Sub-Divisional Officer that petitioner has made encroachment on the aforesaid plots in dispute which is recorded as pond in the revenue records. The proceeding for ejectment under Section 136 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, has been initiated against the petitioner which was registered as Case No.323/2022 (Computerized Case No.T202214180200323, State vs. Lallan Upadhyay). The Sub-Divisional Officer, Chakiya, Chandauli vide order dated 24.2.2022, passed an order for ejectment of the petitioner from plot nos. 146, 149, 149kha as well as imposed damages of Rs.1,01,68,000/-. The Sub- Divisional Officer has recorded a finding of fact that after enquiry, it has been found that no fisheries lease was executed in favour of the petitioner and petitioner is occupying the plot in question for the last 25 years in illegal manner which is recorded as pond. Against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 24.2.2022, petitioner filed Revision No.612 of 2022 (Computerized Case No.AL2022141800612, Lallan Upadhyaya vs. State of U.P. and Others), under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Board of Revenue along with stay application. During the pendency of the aforementioned revision before the Board of Revenue, an order of attachment was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 11.4.2022 as well as proclamation of sale under Section 184 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 dated 5.5.2022. According to the petitioner, on the basis of the aforementioned proclamation, petitioner's property was sold in violation of Section 184 (3) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The sale was made through auction and respondent no.6 purchased the property which was attached in th