Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 2518

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

State of U.P. – Petitioner
Versus
Board Of Revenue And Others – Respondents
WRIT - B No. - 3529 of 2023
Decided On : 10-01-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: C.S.C.,C.S.C.
For the Respondent: Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, Ashok Kumar Singh, Suresh Chandra Varma

Cancellation of agricultural lease after 11 years is barred by limitation, highlighting the importance of timely legal challenges in the context of land allotment under relevant laws.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 198(6) - Cancellation of agricultural lease - Allegation of illegality in allotment after 11 years initiated by private parties - Court finds cancellation proceedings barred by limitation and an abuse of process of law - Earlier proceeding for cancellation had already been dismissed, affirming lease. (Paras 8, 12, 13)

(B) Limitation - Court affirms that limitation objections may be raised even if not previously addressed at lower levels - Limitation questions go to the root of the matter. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner State challenged cancellation proceedings initiated 11 years post-lease allotment in favor of private respondents. The Collector's cancellation was overturned in revision, with restoration applications later rejected. This writ petition was filed after significant delays.

Findings of Court:
Cancellation proceedings initiated after a lengthy delay are considered abusive of legal processes. No interference required as affirmed lease stands legally valid.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the cancellation proceedings were barred by limitation and the legality of the government's appeal against the affirming judgment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held cancellation of lease after 11 years is barred by limitation per Section 198(6) and cannot be revisited, affirming prior rulings and dismissing the appeal as misconceived.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. lease granted and cancellation initiated after 11 years. (Para 2)
2. petitioner's claim of illegality in lease execution. (Para 5)
3. private respondents argue limitation issues. (Para 6)
4. chronology of lease and cancellation events. (Para 8)
5. importance of section 198(6) of u.p.z.a. (Para 9)
6. limitation question can be raised at any time. (Para 10)
7. abuse of process when filings occur after long delay. (Para 12 , 13)
8. writ petition dismissed. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/ State, Mr. S.C. Verma & Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for private respondent no.4 and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.3- Land Management Committee.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the lease for agricultural purpose was granted in favour of private respondents on 3.1.1991, which was approved also on 4.1.1991 in accordance with law. The proceedings for cancellation of the aforementioned lease was initiated after about 11 years i.e. on 17.6.2002 by one Ramdhari. In the aforementioned cancellation proceedings, an objection was filed on behalf of the contesting respondents/ allottees stating that the instant cancellation proceedings is barred by limitation as well as there was no illegality / irregularity in the execution of lease, as such, the cancellation proceeding at the instance of private parties is not maintainable. It is also mentioned in the objection that the allotment was made in accordance with law as provided under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The allotment made in favour of the private respondents were cancelled by Collector vide order dated 17.2.2003. Against the order dated 17.2.2003, revision was filed before the Commissioner on behalf of the private respondents, which was registered as Revision No.173 A of 2003, under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. Additional Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh vide order dated 25.1.2008 allowed the revision setting aside the order dated 17.2.2003. Against the order dated 25.1.2008, one restoration application was filed by private party in the year 2015, another restoration application was filed by State in the year 2016 and one private party has also filed a restoration application in the year 2018 against the order dated 25.1.2008 before the Commissioner. All the three sets of restoration applications were consolidated and heard together. Additional Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh vide order dated 28.8.2018 rejected all the three sets of restoration application and maintained the earlier order dated 25.1.2008. Against the order dated 28.8.2018 passed by Additional Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh rejecting the restoration application as well as order dated 25.1.2008, State has filed the revision, under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act before the Board of Revenue, which has been dismissed vide order dated 2.1.2019, hence this writ petition.

3. Stamp reporter has reported the laches of 1629 days in filing the writ petition.

4. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has explained the laches in paragraph no.12 of the writ petition as well as in the subsequent affidavit dated 12.12.2023 filed in the writ petition.

5. Mr. Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lease executed in favour of private respondent were illegal as allottee were not entitled for allotment, as such, the cancellation proceeding was rightly initiated and the lease was rightly cancelled by the Collector. He further submitted that the order cancelling the lease has been illegally interfered with in revision by the Additional Commissioner, as such, restoration proceedings were initiated which were rejected in arbitrary manner. He further submitted that the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner as well as the Board of