The three-year limitation for filing complaints under Section 66(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code is binding for aggrieved persons contesting lease validity, with failure to construct not automatically leading to cancellation.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Sri H. S. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Govind Kumar Chaurasiya holding brief of Sri Mohan Singh on behalf of for opposite party No.4.

2. In light of the proposed order notice to private respondent No.5 is dispensed with.

3. It has been submitted that a housing lease was granted in favour of predecessor-in-interest of private respondent No.5 which was duly approved on 4.12.1991. The petitioner moved a complaint under Section 66 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2016) alleging that the private respondent has not constructed the house within three years of the grant of the said lease and, therefore, by operation of law as provided under Rule 64 of the Rules of 2016, the lease ought to be cancelled.

4. Notices were issued to the private respondents who participated in the said proceedings and also filed their objections. In the said objections the complaint was vehemently opposed. It was stated that the complainant is an extremely wealthy person who has 12 rooms' house constructed on gata No.720 and has residential land near Nagar Panchayat Lambhuwa and even in New Delhi has three storyed house in Sangam Vihar. Apart from the above, he has a housing plot in Sonia Vihar and does not come into the category of eligible person to be granted a lease,who belongs to other backward class category. It was further stated that the housing leased was allotted in favour of Ram Harakh, the father of respondent No.5 and similar lease was also granted in favour of Ram Ajore, who is father of the complainant and after his death the petitioner is in occupation of the said land. It is further stated that even two brothers of the petitioner, namely Ramdhari and Tilakdhari had also been allotted the housing lease along with father of the petitioner and further submitted that entire proceedings were conducted in accordance with law after due publication and there is no infirmity in the same. It was further stated that the complaint was highly belated and barred by the provisions of Section 66 (2) of the Rules of 2016 and accordingly the same be rejected.

5. Collector, Sultanpur duly considered the rival contentions and after considering the entire factual aspects of the matter was of the view that that the complaint submitted by the petitioner was highly time barred and beyond the limitation prescribed for in Section 66 (2) of the Rules of 2016 in as much as the same was filed after 32 years of the date when the lease was executed and hence proceeded to reject the complaint only on the ground of expiry of the period of limitation prescribed therein.

6. Thereafter, against the order of Collector, Sultanpur dated 19.4.2024 the petitioner had preferred a revision before Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya. The revisional authority also after considering the objections of the petitioner found that there was no infirmity in the order of the Collector in rejecting the complaint on the ground of limitation and, therefore, also rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner.

7. Before this Court, it has been contended by the petitioner that undoubtedly three years' period is prescribed for filing a complaint against a lease from the date of its allotment but submits that as per rule 64 of the Rules of 2016 an allottee has to complete the house within three years from the date of delivery of possession and consequences of the same are provided in sub clause (b) of Rule 64 (2) which provides that in case the allottee fails to comply the terms and conditions of the rules then the Collector may cancel the allotm