Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 2552

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)
Hon'ble Sangeeta Chandra,J. and Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Ravindra Kumar Verma And Ors. – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P.Through Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of Energy Lko.And Ors. – Respondent
WRIT - C No. - 11305 of 2018 at Lucknow

Advocates:
Petitioner: Manoj Kumar Gupta , Gajendra Yadav and Manish Mani Sharma
Respondent: C.S.C. , Atul Kumar Dwivedi and Manish Kumar

Only land lawfully held on the date of vesting can be settled under Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act; mere occupancy does not confer ownership rights.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 4, 6, 9, and 117 - Resumption of land recorded as Abadi for thermal power plant - Petitioners claimed ownership based on long-standing occupancy; however, the court found that their claims lacked legal basis as the land vested in the State - The court emphasized that only land lawfully held on the date of vesting can be settled under Section 9 - The resumption order dated 21.02.2013 was upheld as valid. (Paras 1, 3, 33, 106)

(B) Burden of Proof - The burden lies on the claimants to establish lawful possession on the date of vesting to claim benefits under Section 9 - The court ruled that mere occupancy without legal title does not confer rights. (Paras 70, 106)

(C) Judicial Precedent - The court clarified that the ratio decidendi of a case must be understood in context and is not universally applicable. (Paras 96, 106)

Facts of the case:
Four writ petitions challenged the resumption of land for a thermal power project, asserting that petitioners had occupied the land for generations.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the land had vested in the State and could be resumed under Section 117(6).

Issues: Whether the petitioners had a legal claim to the land based on historical occupancy.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that without proof of lawful possession on the date of vesting, the petitioners had no claim to the land.

Result: All four writ petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Sangeeta Chandra, Brij Raj Singh, JJ.

1. We have heard Sri R. S. Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ankit Pande alongwith Shri Manish Mani Sharma, Shri Mohammad Yusuf Siddiqui, Ms. Pooja Devi, Shri Virendra Bhatt, Shri Gajendra Yadav and Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these writ petitions learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Atul Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the N.T.P.C. and Sri Manish Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State Respondents.

2. All the four writ petitions have been taken up together as they chellenge a common order of Resumption passed by the Commisioner Faizabad Division, dated 21.02.2013 and related to land recorded as Category 6(2) Abadi and Para A- 124 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Records Manual in three villages of Salahpur Rajor, Hussainpur and Hasanpur Sudhana in Tehsil- Tanda, District- Ambedkar Nagar. The said land has been resumed for the purpose of setting up second unit of 660 Megawatts of Tanda Thermal Power Plant by National Thermal Power Corporation (hereinafter referred to as NTPC).

3. For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:

Sl No.	Particulars
I.	Case of Petitioners in Nutshell
II.	Details of the Writ Petitions
III.	Counter Affidavits of State Government and National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC)

IV.	Submissions of the Parties
V.	Statutory Provisions
VI.	Earlier Pronouncements
VII.	Points for determination- A. What was vested in State of U.P. under Section 4(1) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act of 1950? B. Effect of further vesting in the Gaon Sabha in terms of section 117(1) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act of 1950 and resumption of the land by the State Government under section 117(6); C. To what extent benefit can be availed under section 9 of Act 1950; D. Meaning of word “held” given in Section 9 of the Act 1950; E. To Whom Burden of Proof Lies for seeking Benefit of section 9 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act; F. Relevance of Khasra (P-A-3) and Khatauni (P-A- 11) prepared under Section 28 and Section 32, 33 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 and Paragraphs A-60 to A-102 and A-121 to A-160 of the UP Land Records Manual respectively; G. Validity of order of Resumption, dated 21.01.2013 passed under Section 117 (6) of the Act, 1950, by Commissioner Faizabad Division, over the Land recorded as Abadi under Category 6(2) of Paragraph A-124 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Records Manual H. Government cannot and does not acquire its own land, only resumption can be done in terms of section 117(6) of the Act, 1950 because right, title and ownership still continues with the State.
VIII.	Applicability of Durga Narain College and Adity Kumari School v. State of U.P., 2018 (140) RD 510 in the present case
IX.	Doctrine of Precedents and their binding efficacy
X.	Conclusion

I. Case of Petitioners in Nutshell

4. In a nutshell, the case of the petitioners is that their houses and adjacent lands had stood on the land recorded as Abadi in Category 6(2) under Para A-124 of the Uttar Pradesh Lands Records Manual since the time of their forefathers. Therefore, it would be presumed that the houses and adjacent lands were settled with the respective occupiers of the land in terms of section 9 of the Act, 1950. The assertion of the Petitioners is that the resumption of land, virtually amounts to acquiring the land of the petitioners by an administrative order. A further assertion is that once houses of the petitioners are standing thereon since the time of their forefathers, it would be deemed that the houses and appurtenant land had been settled with the respective occupiers in terms of Section 9 of the Act, 1950, and consequently, the occupiers had become owners of said land. Hence, the Commissioner Faizabad Division, has no power to resume the land regardless of whether said land has been consistently recorded as Abadi in Category 6(2) of Para A- 124 of the Uttar Pradesh Lands Recor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 2552

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)Hon'ble Sangeeta Chandra,J. and Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.Ravindra Kumar Verma And Ors. – AppellantVersusState Of U.P.Through Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of Energy Lko.And Ors. – Respondent WRIT - C No. - 11305 of 2018 at Lucknow

Only land lawfully held on the date of vesting can be settled under Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act; mere occupancy does not confer ownership rights.

Cases Referred (18)

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)
Hon'ble Sangeeta Chandra,J. and Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Ravindra Kumar Verma And Ors. – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P.Through Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of Energy Lko.And Ors. – Respondent
WRIT - C No. - 11305 of 2018 at Lucknow