Petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge a private lease under the U.P. Revenue Code, as only parties with direct interests may bring such claims.

JUDGMENT :

NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Rai, learned counsel for petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4, Sri Shyam Surat Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no. 6 and Mr. Samir Sharma, learned Senior Counsel as amicus curiae appointed by this Court vide order dated26.08.2025.

2. Present petition has been filed seeking following relief:-

“(I) Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned revisional order dt. 10.07.25 passed by respondent no. 1 and impugned order dt. 28.05.25 passed by respondent no. 4 (Annexure No. 1 & 2 to this writ petition respectively).

(II) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 4 to cancel the lease deed dt. 15.02.23 as per provisions of section 104 of the code and Rule 103 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued on 28.06.2023 for allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership of Indian Oil Corporation. Along with petitioner, respondent no. 6 was also one of the applicant. In terms of advertisement, respondent no. 6 has produced required lease deed of land executed by respondent no. 5 for 29 years and 11 months. Based upon that, Letter of Intent was issued in favour of respondent no. 6. At this stage, petitioner has challenged the lease deed before the Sub Divisional Officer on the ground that lease deed so executed is in violation of Section 94 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Code, 2006’), therefore, it is void in terms of Section 104 of Code, 2006 read with Rules 103 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 2016’). Against the said application, objection was filed and in objection apart from other grounds, it is firmly stated that petitioner is having no locus to challenge the lease deed executed under of Code, 2006.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that from the perusal of Section 94 of Code, 2006, it is apparently clear that lease deed in of Code, 2006 can only be executed for agriculture or for setting up Solar Plant, whereas in the present case, it is executed for establishment of Retail Outlet of Indian Oil, therefore, the said lease deed may be declared void. He next submitted that instead of declaring the lease deed void, Sub Divisional Officer has rejected the application of petitioner only on the ground that applicant is having no locus to challenge the same as he is neither owner nor co-sharer. He firmly submitted that in terms of of Code, 2006 read with Rule, 103 of Rules, 2016, there is no need to become a co-sharer or owner and only information is sufficient to declare the lease deed void. He also submitted that in terms of Rule 186 of Rules, 2016, provisions of Civil Procedure Code would not be applicable in present case, therefore, under such facts orders impugned are bad and liable to be set aside. He also pointed out that averment so made in lease deed is false and fabricated as the facts are entirely different. In support of that, he has also placed reliance upon Khasra, Khatauni and report of Lekhpal, where it is stated that two rooms are present but on the spot, no rooms are in existence on the land in dispute, therefore, lease deed is based upon incorrect facts. Petitioner has challenged the order by filing Revision No. 2692 of 2025, which was dismissed at the admission stage vide order dated 10.07.2025 affirming the order of Sub Divisional Officer dated 28.05.2025.

5. Per contra, Sri Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no. 6 submitted that Section 94 of Code, 2006 pertains to execution of private lease and further Section 95 of Code, 2006 provid