# Amrit Bazar Patrika Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 1191
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-10-31
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 39769 of 2018
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal, Virendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amrit-bazar-patrika-pvt-ltd-allahabad-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45140
- **Pages:** 55

## Headnote

Sri Ajit Kumar Singh (Addl. A.G.), Sri Devi
Prasad Mishra, Sri Suresh C. Dwivedi, Sri
Amit
Verma,
Sri
Nimai
Das
&
Sri
Sudhanshu Srivastava (Addl. C.S.C.), Sri
M.D. Singh 'Shekhar'

A. Nazul - defined - historic evolution -
Article 296 of the Indian Constitution -
power of State Government or Union of
India to get ownership of land which will
come to it by way of 'escheat', 'lapse' or
'bona vacantia' and not by way of
acquisition of land under some Statute or
purchase etc.

The 'Nazul' land forms the assets owned by
State in trust for the people in general who are
entitled for its user in the most fair and
beneficial manner for their benefit. (Para 40)

B. Government Grants Act, 1985 - Section
2 and 3 - any grant or transfer of land or
of any interest, as the case may be,
excludes applicability of
Transfer of
Property Act, 1882, for all purposes -
therefore, 'Grant' of a Nazul will be
governed
by
terms
and
conditions
contained in the instrument/deed of
Grant, wholly unaffected by any Statute
providing otherwise - Grant includes
'lease'.

After the U.P. Amendment Act, 1960, Section 2
and 3 got amalgamated in Section 2 of
Government Grants (U.P. Amendment) Act,

## Text

_Characters 0–39,800 of 184,000. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39800 for what follows._

1 All. Akram Khan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1191
espouse the cause of its member cane
growers before the Cane Commissioner,
State Government or in the High Court."

20. Taking a similar view this Court
in its judgment passed in the case in
Dharam Veer Singh & Ors. Vs. State of
U.P. & Ors. held that under Rule 22 of the
Rules, 1954, the Cane Commissioner
while passing an order of reservation of
cane area is required to ascertain the view
of the cane growers' co-operative society
of the area and there is no requirement to
issue notice to individual farmers or to
ascertain their views. The observations
made in the judgment are as follows:-

"We find no merit in this claim
because under the relevant Rule-22 of the
U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and
Purchase)
Rules,
1954,
the
Cane
Commissioner while passing the initial
order for reservation of cane area is
required to ascertain the views of the Cane
Growers Cooperative Society of the area.
There is no requirement even at that stage
to issue notice to individual farmers or
ascertain their views. Hence there can be
no such responsibility or liability upon the
State Government while hearing the
appeal under Section 15(4) of the Act to
issue notice to individual farmers like the
petitioners."

21. In a recent judgment of this Court
in Harveer Singh & Ors. Vs. State of
U.P. & 4 Ors. the aforementioned legal
position has again been reiterated and it
has been held that writ petition at the
behest of an individual cane growers
seeking to raise grievances with regard to
reservation or assignment of cane areas is
not maintainable and that their cause can
be espoused only by the cane growers' cooperative society.

22.

Having
regard
to
the
aforementioned facts and circumstances
the position which emerges is that in terms
of the provisions for under the Act, 1953
and
the
Rules,
1954
an
elaborate
mechanism is provided for reservation and
assignment of cane areas to sugar factories
in order to regulate the supply and
purchase of sugarcane in their area. The
factors which are taken into consideration
include ascertaining the views of the cane
growers' co-operative society of the area.
The
individual
cane
growers
have
therefore no right or locus standi to raise
any challenge to reservation or assignment
of cane areas in favour of a particular
sugar factory and any grievance in this
regard is to be espoused only through the
cane growers' co-operative society which
represents the cane growers of the area.

23. We are therefore not inclined to
entertain the present writ petition which
has been filed by the petitioners claiming
to be sugarcane growers of the area in their
individual capacities.

24. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1191

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE VIRENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 39769 of 2018
With
Writ C No. 40129 of 2018
1192 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
M/s
Amrit
Bazar
Patrika
Pvt.
Ltd.,
Allahabad ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Amit Kumar Upadhyay, Sri Aditya
Bhushan, Sri Anurag Khanna

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ajit Kumar Singh (Addl. A.G.), Sri Devi
Prasad Mishra, Sri Suresh C. Dwivedi, Sri
Amit
Verma,
Sri
Nimai
Das
&
Sri
Sudhanshu Srivastava (Addl. C.S.C.), Sri
M.D. Singh 'Shekhar'

A. Nazul - defined - historic evolution -
Article 296 of the Indian Constitution -
power of State Government or Union of
India to get ownership of land which will
come to it by way of 'escheat', 'lapse' or
'bona vacantia' and not by way of
acquisition of land under some Statute or
purchase etc.

The 'Nazul' land forms the assets owned by
State in trust for the people in general who are
entitled for its user in the most fair and
beneficial manner for their benefit. (Para 40)

B. Government Grants Act, 1985 - Section
2 and 3 - any grant or transfer of land or
of any interest, as the case may be,
excludes applicability of
Transfer of
Property Act, 1882, for all purposes -
therefore, 'Grant' of a Nazul will be
governed
by
terms
and
conditions
contained in the instrument/deed of
Grant, wholly unaffected by any Statute
providing otherwise - Grant includes
'lease'.

After the U.P. Amendment Act, 1960, Section 2
and 3 got amalgamated in Section 2 of
Government Grants (U.P. Amendment) Act,
1960. The intent, effect and declaration by
legislature is almost pari materia with the only
addition that in State of U.P., U.P. Tenancy Act,
1939 and Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 are also
excluded in the same manner as was done in
respect of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. (Para
54)

Even though petitioner is an 'unauthorized
occupant' but the provisions of U.P. Act, 1972
shall
not
be
applicable
based
on
the
aforementioned reason.

The terms and conditions of the Indenture of
Lease/Grant shows that the transfer of lease
was clearly prohibited unless permission of
Government i.e., the lessor or its Authorized
agent i.e., Collector has been obtained.
Therefore, the transfer and possession of land
by M/s Amrit Bazar Patrika Pvt. Ltd. to M/s
Allahabad Patrika Pvt. Ltd was wholly illegal as
per the terms of the Grant as nothing is on
record to suffice that the permission was
obtained. (Para 76)

C. Limitation on Sub-Granting - any
otherwise transfer by Sub-Grantor, of land
subjected to Grant, will not confer any valid
right or interest upon the person to whom
Sub-Grantee
had
transferred
property
under 'Grant' in violation of stipulations
contained in Grant.

It is a general principle of property laws, that a
person can transfer only such rights and
interest which he or she possesses and not
beyond that. Therefore in light of the above
principle, the Court observed that the transfer
of any part of disputed land to petitioner-1 of
WP2 founded on agreement dated 23.06.1995
executed between Directors of Allahabad
Patrika Pvt. Ltd. and petitioner-1 of WP-2 is
also of no consequence and legal sanction
since none of the parties to the said agreement
had any right or interest in law, over land in
dispute. Lease having expired on 14.03.1962,
all lease rights possessed by erstwhile Lessee
came to an end, and thereafter when Lessee
itself did not have any legal right or interest
over property in dispute, others or so called
transferees also cannot claim anything more
than that. Further, any such invalid transfer can
be construed as breach of terms of Grant and
would empower the principal Grantor i.e., the
State, owner of the property, to take steps
including resumption/re-entry to the property
under
Grant,
to
itself,
besides
claiming
1 All. M/s Amrit Bazar Patrika Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1193
damages, compensation, as the case may be,
as law permits (Para 77, 78 & 79).

D. Doctrine of election - it is based on
rule of estoppel - no party can accept and
reject the same instrument.

The condition of resumption of land is part of
contract between the parties and having
accepted the same and contract has been
carried out and completed its term, it order to
wriggle out the rights, obligations and liabilities
incurred and acquired thereunder, one of the
parties cannot wriggle out by contending that
one of the conditions of such agreement is bad.
(Para 112)

E. Possession - its concept - kinds of
possession - possession is not restricted
to physical control - the nature of article
and its attitudes and activities of other
person determines whether a person is in
possession of an article or not.

F. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -
Section 106 - once the lease stood
determined
by
efflux
of
time(stand
expired), there is no necessity to issue
quit notice - status of lessee is that of
'tenant at sufferance' i.e., one who
wrongfully continues in possession after
extinction of lawful title - section 116 is
not applicable.

G.
Resumption
of
land
-
State
is
empowered to resume/re-enter Nazul
land at any time, more so for public
purpose.

Editor's note
Concisely, the disputed plot of land is a Nazul
land, which during the Colonial times was
leased out by the Crown to one William Rome
for residential purposes. The lease of the
disputed land was eventually sold to the
petitioner of Writ petition-1 who obtained the
permission to carry on business activities and
registered its name in the Nazul Register.
Meanwhile, the petitioner sub leased the land
to its associate company and the closed its
business unit in that premises. But it continued
to be the lessee as per the Nazul Register. It is
noteworthy that the lease was executed for 50
years i.e., valid till 14.03.1962 therefore the
petitioner sought renewal which was rejected
for flouting the terms and conditions of the
lease deed. Aggrieved by the said rejection the
instant writ petitions were filed.

The allocation of Nazul land by English Rulers
used to be called "Grant". These lands were
leased out at the whims of the Rulers either
with or without any stipulations to those who
were faithful to the foreign regime. Despite the
enactment of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 for
the regulation of immovable properties, the
Rulers enacted Government Grants Act, 1895
(hereinafter referred as "Act of 1895") so as to
exercise unfettered power to resume/forfeit the
transferred property. Section 2 and 3 of the Act
of 1895 declares that any grant or transfer of
land or creation of any interest made by or in
behalf of the Government, in favour of any
person, on and after the enactment of Act of
1895 would not be governed by Transfer of
Property Act of 1882. By way of U.P.
Amendment Act, 1960, the State of U.P. in
addition to the Act of 1882 (hereinafter
referred as "Act of 1882"), excluded U.P.
Tenancy Act, 1939 and Agra Tenancy Act, 1926
in the same manner. This implies that the
Grant of Nazul land will be governed by the
terms
and
conditions
contained
in
the
instrument/deed of Grant, wholly unaffected by
any Statute whatsoever. Grant includes lease
therefore the terms and conditions agreed by
the parties in the lease deed will be binding on
them, notwithstanding any rule of law, statute
or enactment of the Legislature to the contrary.

In other words, notwithstanding any Statute,
the terms and conditions of the lease deed will
govern the relationship between the parties.
The parties had explicitly agreed not to transfer
the leased property without prior permission of
the Lessor (State) or its authorized agent
(Collector).
However,
Krishna
Chandra
Mukherjee, to whom the disputed land was
leased out by Anandi Prasad Dube, had sold
the leased disputed Nazul land via sale deed to
the petitioner. Neither Anandi Prasad Dube nor
Krishna Chandra Mukherjee was the owner of
the property and thus have no right over the
said disputed land. The sale of the leased
disputed land was without any authority
therefore no right, title or ownership could be
1194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
transferred to the transferee i.e., the petitioner.
In property laws, it is said that a person can
transfer only such rights and interest which he
or she possesses and not beyond that. Since
parties has to abide by the terms and
conditions of the lease deed, therefore, at best
the transferor could have transferred only lease
rights which he himself possessed. Moreover,
further transfer of any part of disputed land to
petitioner-1 of W.P.-2 by the Directors of M/s
Allahabad Patrika Pvt. Ltd. also does not find
legal sanction as none of the parties had any
right or interest in law over that disputed land.
Transfer of land against the terms and
conditions of the deed or beyond the right over
the property makes such a transfer invalid and
unenforceable in the eyes of law. The lease of
the disputed Nazul land expired on 14.03.1962
with which all the lease rights possessed by
erstwhile Lessee came to an end so the Lessee
itself did not have any legal right or interest left
over the disputed land.

Besides this, the Hon'ble Court has also
observed that the petitioner has not obtained
any permission from the Lessor i.e., the State
to transfer the disputed land to the M/s
Allahabad Patrika Pvt. Ltd (even though it was
contented to be an associate company of the
petitioner but the court has considered this
transfer to be from one legal person to another
as it is a separate legal entity). Therefore, the
transfer by petitioner-1 of WP-1 is patently
illegal and confers no right upon transferee,
i.e., M/s Allahabad Patrika Pvt. Ltd. As far as
petitioners of W.P.-2 are concerned, they are
deriving their claim from M/s Allahabad Patrika
Pvt. Ltd., they also have no right over the
disputed land. Since the petitioners have lost
their right over the disputed land, either on
account of the violation of terms of the Grant
or on transferring beyond their legal right,
therefore question of renewal of the Grant does
not arise at all.

The Grant deed empowers the Grantor i.e., the
State (owner of the property) to take steps for
resumption/re-entry to the property after
cessation, determination or expiry of lease or
on violation of the terms and conditions of the
deed. In addition to the resumption, the State
can also claim damages or compensation, as
law permits. Further, the Court did not find any
arbitrariness in the resumption clause as the
State being the owner of the land can claim it
back for public purpose. Also, resumption
clause is part of the contract between the
parties and having accepted the same and
carried out the contract, the parties are
restrained from questioning it. Section 35 of
the Act of 1882 incorporates the doctrine of
election which is based on the rule of estoppel.
It postulates that where a party have accepted
a contract as a whole and agreed to the terms
and conditions, then subsequently it is not
open for either of the parties to retain some or
leave another. No party can accept and reject
the same instrument. A party cannot say at one
time that a transaction is valid and thereby
obtain some advantage to which he could only
be entitled on the condition that it is valid and
then turn around and say that it is void for the
purpose of securing some other advantage.

After consider the various jurisprudential
aspects of possession, the Court held that the
petitioner can be said to be in juridical
possession of the disputed land, though
admittedly unlawful and illegal. When the
person is in possession, may not be legal, the
recovery of possession by owner must be legal.
After validating the resumption clause, the
Court further observed that even if the
petitioners
are
rank
trespassor
and
in
possession of land in dispute, the use of force
for evicting them would not justified and
without sanction of law.

Precisely, after the expiry of lease on
14.03.1962, the State (Lessor) is the actual
owner of the disputed Nazul land. The status of
lessee is of 'Tenant at Sufferance'; who entered
into possession of a land validly in terms of
lease deed but with the efflux of time or in
other words, after expiry or determination of
lease continue to hold the property. The status
of the petitioner is even worst to that of the
lessee. The petitioner-1 W.P.1 has no actual
possession
over
land
in
dispute
while
possession of other petitioner is illegal. The
right of re-entry exercised by the State is in
terms of the lease-deed where under even the
original lessee is obliged to surrender over
possession to State.

Writ Petitions rejected. (E-10)
1 All. M/s Amrit Bazar Patrika Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1195

List of cases cited: -

1. Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. And ors vs. UOI
and ors (1986) 1 SCC 133

2. Dyke Vs. Walford 5 Moore PC 434=496-13
ER 557 (580)

3. Pierce Leslie and Co. Ltd. Vs. Miss Violet
Outcherlony Wapsnare AIR 1969 SC 843

4. Collector of Masulipatam vs. C. Vencata
Narainapah 8 MIA 500, 525

5. Ranee Sonet Kowar Vs. Mirza Himmut
Bahadoor (2) LR 3 IA 92, 101

6. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Vs State of Bombay [1958] SCR 1122,1146

7. Superintendent and Legal Remembrancer vs.
Corporation of Calcutta [1967] 2 SCR 170, 204

8. Cook Vs. Sprigg (1899) AC 572

9. Raja Rajinder Chand Vs. Mst Sukhi, AIR
1957 SC 286

10. Nayak Vajesingji Joravarsingji Vs. Secretary
of State for India in Council AIR 1924 PC 216

11. Dalmia Dadri Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT
[1958] 34 ITR 514 (SC): AIR 1958 SC 816

12. Promod Chandra Deb vs. State of Orissa
AIR 1962 SC 1288

13. Amarsarjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR
1962 1305
14. Thakur Amar Singhji Vs. State of Rajasthan
AIR 1955 SC 504

15. State of Rajasthan Vs. Sajjanlal Panjawat
AIR 1975 SC 706

16.
Director
of
Endowments,
Govt.
of
Hyderabad Vs. Akram Ali AIR 1956 SC 60

17. Sarwarlal Vs. State of Hyderabad AIR 1960
SC 862

18. Biswambhar Singh vs. State of Orissa 1964
(1) SCJ 364

19. State of U.P. Vs. Zahoor Ahmad 1973 (2)
SCC 547 (followed)

20. Hajee S.V.M. Mohamed Jamaludeen Bros.
& Co. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu (1997) 3
SCC 466

21. Azim Ahmad Kazmi and ors Vs. State of
U.P. and ors (2012) 7 SCC 278

22. State of U.P. and ors Vs. United Bank of
India and ors. (2016) 2 SCC 757 (followed)

23. Pradeep Oil Corporation Vs. Municipal
Corporation of Delhi and ors (2011) 5 SCC 270

24. Shakira Khatoon Kazmi vs. State of U.P.
AIR 2002 All 101

25. Sayeed Shah Khursheed Ahmad Kashmi Vs.
State of U.P. Writ Petition No. 44517 of 1998

26. Delhi Development Authority Vs. Anant Raj
Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 11 SCC 406(followed)

27. Purshottam Das Tandon and ors Vs. State
of U.P. and ors AIR 1987 All 56 (distinguished)

28. Mt. Bilas Kunwar Vs. Desraj Ranjit and ors
AIR 1915 P.C. 96

29. Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots'
Association of India (ALPAI) and ors Vs.
Director General of Civil Aviation and ors
(2001) 5 SCC 435

30. Babu Ram alias Durga Prasad Vs. Indra Pal
Singh 1998(6) SCC 358
31. P.R. Deshpande Vs. Maruti Balram Haibatti
1998(6) SCC 507

32.
Mumbai
International
Airport
Private
Limited Vs. Golden Chariot Airport and anr
2010 (10) SCC 422

33. Cauvery Coffee Traders, Mangalore Vs.
Hornor
Resources
(International
Company
Limited) (2011) 10 SCC 420
1196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
34. Nagubai Ammal Vs. B. Shama Rao AIR
1956 SC 593

35. CIT Vs. MR.P. Firm Muar AIR 1965 SC 1216

36. NTPC Ltd. v. Reshmi constructions Builders
& Contractors (2004) 2 SCC 663

37. Ramesh Chandra Sankla v. Vikram Cement
(2008)14 SCC 58

38. Pradeep Oil Corpn. v. MCD (2011) 5 SCC
270

39.
V.
Chandrasekaran
and
another
v.
Administrative Officer and others, (2012) 12
SCC 133

40. Rajasthan State Industrial Development
and Investment Corporation and another v.
Diamond & Gem Development Corporation
Limited and another (2013) 5 SCC 470

41. State of Punjab and others v. Dhanjit Singh
Sandhu (2014) 15 SCC 144

42. Maharashtra SRTC v. Balwant Regular
Motor Service AIR 1969 SC 329

43. R.N. Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir (1992) 4 SCC 683

44. P.R. Deshpande v. Maruti Balaram Haibatti,
(1998) 6 SCC 507

45. Bansraj Lalta Prasad Mishra v. Stanley
Parker Jones, (2006) 3 SCC 91

46. Bishan Das and others Vs. State of Punjab
and others AIR 1961 SC 1570 (followed)

47. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and others
Vs. Union of India (1986) 1 SCC 133
48. Yar Mohammad and another vs. Lakshmi
Das and others AIR 1959 Allahabad 1
(distinguished)

49. Lallu Yeshwant Singh (dead) by his legal
representative vs. Rao Jagdish Singh and
others AIR 1968 SC 620(distinguished)

50. Azim Ahmad Kazmi and others vs. State of
U.P. and Another (2012) 7 SCC 278 (followed)

51. Shanti Prasad Devi and others vs. Shankar
Mahto and others (2005) 5 SCC 543 (followed)

52. R.V. Bhupal Prasad vs. State of A.P. (1995)
5 SCC 698 (followed)

53. Sevoke Properties Ltd. vs. West Bengal
State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. AIR
2019 SC 2664(followed)

54. Thakoor Chunder Parmanick Vs. Ramdhone
Bhuttacharjee (1866) 6 W.R. 228

55. Lala Beni Ram Vs. Kundan Lall (1899) L.R.
26 I.A. 58

56. Narayan Das Khettry Vs. Jatindranath
(1927) L.R. 54 I.A. 218

57. Wazir Chand Vs. The State of Himachal
Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 415 (distinguished)

58. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and others
Vs. Union of India (1986) 1 SCC 133

59. State of Orissa Vs. Ram Chandra Dev AIR
1964 SC 685

60. Mohammed Hanif Vs. State of Assam
(1969) 2 SCC 782 (distinguished)

61. Jnanendra Nath Nanda vs. Jadu Nath
Banerji AIR 1938 Cal 211

62. Secretary of State for India in Council vs.
Lal Mohan Chaudhuri, AIR 1935 Cal 746

63. Lala Kishun Chand vs. Sheo Dutta, AIR
1958 All. 879

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Both these writ petitions relate to
Nazul Land i.e. Plot No.120-1/2 Civil
Station, Allahabad. Total area of aforesaid
plot is 12219.60 Sq.Meters and in both the
matters, petitioners are claiming their
rights over half of said plot. Since they
relate to same plot, therefore, have been
heard together and are being decided by
this common judgment.
1 All. M/s Amrit Bazar Patrika Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1197

2. Writ Petition No. 39769 of 2018
(hereinafter referred to as "WP-1") has
been filed by M/s Amrit Bazar Patrika Pvt.
Ltd. Allahabad having its registered office
at 9, India Exchange Place, 7th Floor,
Room
No.1A,
Kolkata
through
its
authorized Secretary, Ranen Chaterjee
(General Manager). State of Uttar Pradesh
through Principal Secretary, Housing and
Urban Planning Development; District
Magistrate, Allahabad and Additional
District Magistrate, Finance & Revenue
(Nazul) are impleaded as respondents 1, 2
and 3; Allahabad Development Authority
(Now Prayagraj Development Authority)
(hereinafter referred to as "PDA") is
respondent
no.4
and
Nagar
Nigam
Allahabad (Now Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj),
through Nagar Ayukt (hereinafter referred
to as "NNP") is impleaded as respondent5.

3. Petitioner in WP-1 has prayed for
issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing
notice dated 18.08.2018 (Annexure 1 to
writ
petition)
passed
by
District
Magistrate,
Allahabad
(respondent-2)
informing petitioner and others that land in
dispute has been resumed by State
Government and therefore, the same be
vacated within 15 days. Petitioners have
also prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari
for quashing letter/order dated 13.11.2018
issued in respect of land in dispute. A writ
petition No.36210 of 2018 was filed by
Lal Ji Pandey and others and the same was
dismissed by this Court vide judgment
dated 31.10.2018, therefore, PDA, NNA
and
respondent-3
were
directed
by
respondent-2, vide letter dated 13.11.2018,
to ensure take over possession of land in
dispute and hand over to respondent-5.

4. Facts in brief in respect of WP-1
are that a registered lease deed dated
01.3.1862 was executed by Commissioner
of Allahabad Division in favour of
"William Rowe" on yearly rent of Rs.30/-
for the purpose of building a dwelling
house. Term of lease was 50 years with the
condition that lessee, if desirous of taking
a new lease, should at lease six calendar
months before expiration, signify his
intention or desire of a new lease by a
notice in writing to Secretary to the
Government of North Western Provinces,
or to such person as shall be appointed in
that behalf by Government. The disputed
land bear plot no.120 -1/2, had an area of 3
acres 45 sq.yards. A new lease deed
subsequently was executed on 12.5.1915
in respect of disputed land i.e. Plot
No.120-1/2, area 3 acres 45 Sq. Yards by
Collector, Allahabad District on behalf of
Secretary of State in favour of Anandi
Prasad Dube, son of Bal Mukund, resident
of 10, Edmonstone Road, Allahabad, for a
period of 50 years, commencing from
15.3.1912, on yearly rent of Rs.40/-.
Broadly,
stipulations/terms
of
lease,
relevant for our purpose are as under :

"(i) that he will during the term
hereby granted pay unto the Secretary of
State the yearly rent hereby reserved on
the days and in manner herein before
appointed

(ii) AND ALSO will from time to
time and at all times during the said term
pay and discharge all rates, taxes, charges
and assessment of every description which
are now or may at any time hereafter
during said term be assessed charged or
imposed upon the said premise hereby
demised or the building erected thereupon
or the landlord or tenant in respect thereof

(iii) AND ALSO will not without
the previous consent in writing of the said
Collector erect or setup or suffer to be
erected or setup on any part of the said
1198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
premises hereby demised any messuage or
building other than and except the
messuage and building already erected
and delincated upon the map here to
annexed.

(iv) AND THAT if breach of the
said proceeding covenant any messuage
or building is erected or setup or suffered
to be erected or setup without such
permission as aforesaid it shall be lawful
for the Collector or for any person or
persons duly deputed by him to cause
such messuage or building to be pulled
down after the expiration of fourteen
days of his giving or causing to be given
notice to the said lessee his Executors,
Administrators and Assigns, to remove the
same which notice may be given either
verbally or in writing upon the said
premises. AND will not without the
previous consent in writing of the said
Collector make any alteration in the plan
or elevation of the said dwelling house
and out building or carry or permit to be
carried on the said premises any trade or
business whatsoever or use the same or
permit the same to be used for any purpose
other than that of a dwelling house

(v) AND ALSO will not without
the previous consent in writing of the said
Collector grow any crops or keep any
horse, cattle or other animals for hire or
profit allow the same to be done in or
upon the said demised premises but shall
use the same for the purposes of a garden
or pleasure grounds attached to the said
dwelling house

(vi) AND ALSO upon the breach
of any of the aforesaid covenant the said
lessee has Executors, Administrator or
Assigns shall and will on demand pay or
cause to be paid to the Secretary of State
the sum of Rs. 500 by way of liquidated
damages and not penalty and that on a
second breach of the same it shall be
lawful for the said Secretary of State his
Successors or Assigns into and upon the
same demised premises or any part
thereof in the name of the Whole to reenter and the same to have again
repossess and enjoy as in their former
estate anything herein contained to the
contrary notwithstanding.

(vii) AND ALSO that the said
lessee his Executors, Administrators and
Assigns will not without the permission in
writing of the said Collector or of some
person authorized by him in that behalf
construct, thatch or cover or cause or
permit to be instructed thatched or
covered, with grass reeds or other
inflammable materials any building which
shall or may be erected or constructed
upon the said piece or parcel of land or
ground, unless such thatch or roof or
inflammable material shall be protected by
a covering of titles. And that if in breach
of the said lastly preceding covenant any
building which shall or may be erected or
constructed upon the said piece or parcel
of land or ground be thatched or covered
with grass reeds or other inflammable
materials without such permission as
aforesaid and aforesaid and without being
protected by a covering of tiles, it shall be
lawful for the said Collector or for any
person duly deputed by him to cause such
building, shed, roof, covering or other
inflammable material to be pulled down
after the expiration of twelve hours from
the time of his giving or causing to be
given notice to the said lessee his
Executors, Administrators or Assigns to
remove the same, which notice may be
given either verbally or in writing upon
the said premises

(viii) AND ALSO shall and will
at the end, expiration or other sooner
determination of the said term peaceably
and quietly leave surrender and yield up
1 All. M/s Amrit Bazar Patrika Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1199
to the said Secretary of State his
Successor or Assign the said piece or
parcel of land or ground together with all
such of the said erection or building and
all fixtures and things which at any time
and during the said term shall be affixed
or setup within or upon the said demised
premises as the said Secretary of State, his
Successor and Assigns shall desire to
takeover at a valuation according to the
option hereinafter reserved to them,
subject
however
to
the
conditions
hereinafter contained,

(ix) PROVIDED ALWAYS and it
is hereby understand and agreed, that in
case the said Secretary of State shall not
at the expiration of the said term desire to
take over the said buildings, erection or
fixtures or thing which shall have been at
any time during the said term granted
under the lease dated 1st day of March
1862 or during the said term hereby
granted affixed to or set up within or
upon the said premises it shall be lawful
for the said lessee his Executors,
Administrators or Assigns to remove and
take away the same as and for his and
their absolute property, but in case the
said Collector shall at the expiration of the
said term hereby granted give notice to the
said lessee his Executors, Administrators
or Assigns of his intention to take over the
buildings,erections, fixtures or things
which shall have been at any time during
the said term granted under the lease
dated 1st day of March 1862 or during the
said term hereby granted set up within or
upon the said premises or any part thereof,
it shall be lawful for the said Secretary of
State, his Successors and Assigns to take
over the said buildings, erection, fixtures
and things or any part thereof with the
land, and in that case the said Secretary of
State, his Successor and Assigns shall pay
unto the said lessee his Executors,
Administrators or Assigns the value of
such buildings, erections, fixtures or other
things or of such part thereof as they shall
so take over as aforesaid, such value to be
ascertained in case the parties themselves
cannot agree, by the arbitration of two
arbitration, the one to be named by the
Secretary of State, his Successor and
Assigns, and the other by said Lessee his
Executor, Administrators or Assigns and
in case they shall differ by an umpire to be
appointed by the said two arbitrators, or
in case either of the parties hereto shall
neglect to appoint an arbitrator for more
than one fortnight after notice has been
served upon them or him by the other
party to appoint such arbitrator, then by
the sole arbitration of the arbitrator
appoint by such other of the parties hereto
which arbitration shall be final.

(x) Provided ALWAYS and it is
hereby declared and agreed that no
compensation
or
payment
shall
be
claimable
by
the
said
Lessee
his
Executors, Administrators or Assigns for
any
buildings,
erections
or
fixtures
erected, affixed, or placed by him them or
any of them in or upon the said premises
or any part thereof. In case these presents
shall be determined by re-entry for
forfeiture in which case the buildings,
erections
and
fixtures
shall
rest
absolutely in the said Security of State his
Successors and Assigns as his own
property without any compensation or
payment in respect thereof

(xi) PROVIDED FUTURES as it
is hereby agreed that the said Lessee his
Executors, Administrators or Assigns or
underlet of otherwise part with the
possession of the said premises or any
part thereof without the permission of the
said secretary of State his Successors or
Assign
(which
permission
may
be
1200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
signified by the said Collector or by such
other person as the Government of the
North Western Provinces or the said
Secretary of State may appoint in that
behalf) for that express purpose had any
obtained

(xii) PROVIDED ALWAYS that
if
the
said
Lessee
his
Executors,
Administrators or Assigns shall Assign or
transfer these presents, or the lease or
term hereby granted or created, or the
unexpired portion of the said term, or
shall underlet the said premises or any
part thereof with such permission as
aforesaid unto any other person or
persons of whom the said Collector shall
approve, and if such person or persons
shall engage and bind themselves to
observe all the conditions, agreements
and provisions of these presents in
respect of such portion of the said term or
of the said premises as shall have been so
assigned or underlet to him as aforesaid
and shall procure such assignments or
sublease to be registered in such manner
as shall be appointed by the said
Secretary of State for purpose of
registering lease and other instruments of
or relating to lands situate within the
local limits of Allahabad (and for the
registry of which assignments or sublesses
a fee of not more than Rs. 16 shall be paid
by the person of persons tendering such
assignment or sublease for registry) then
and otherwise the liability of the said
lessee
his
Heirs,
Executors,
Administrators,
for
the
purpose
or
subsequent observance and performance
of the covenants on the leases part herein
contained, so far as relates to the portion
of the said term or of the said premises so
assigned or underlet as aforesaid, but not
further or otherwise, shall cause and
determine, but without prejudice however
to the right of section of the Secretary of
State his Successors or Assigns in respect
or on account of any previous breach of
any
covenant
or
covenants
herein
contained,

(xiii) PROVIDED ALWAYS and
it is hereby desired that if the said yearly
rents hereby reserved or any part thereof
shall at any time be in arrears and unpaid
for the space of 21 days next after any of
the said days whereon the same shall have
become due whether the same shall have
been lawfully demanded or not or if their
shall be any breach or non observance by
the lessee of any of the covenants
hereinbefore contained on his part to be
observed and performed then and in any
such case it shall be lawful for the
Secretary of State notwithstanding the
waiver of any previous cause or right of
the re-entry to enter into and upon the
said demised premises and the Willam
Rome and out building erected as
aforesaid or any part thereof in the name
of the whole and thereupon the same
shall remain to the use of and be vested
in the Secretary of State and this demise
shall absolutely determine out which
entry if made shall not prejudice the right
of the said Secretary of state his
Successors or Assigns to damage for the
previous breach of any covenant on the
part of the said Lessee his Executors,
Administrators,
or
Assigns
herein
contained.

(xiv) AND the said Secretary of
State
doth
hereby
for
himself
his
Successors and Assigns covenant with the
said lessee his Executors, Administrators
and Assigns that the said lessee his
Executors, Administrators and Assigns
paying the rent hereinbefore reserved at
the times and in manner hereinbefore
appointed, and observing and performing
all and singular the covenants, conditions
1 All. M/s Amrit Bazar Patrika Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1201
and agreements herein contained, and on
and their parts to be observed and
performed according to the true intent and
meaning of these presents, shall and may
peaceably and quietly hold, use occupy,
possess and enjoy the said piece and
parcel of land and ground and premises
hereby demised during the said term of
fifty years hereby granted without any let,
suit, denial, eviction or disturbance of or
by the said Secretary of State his
Successors or Assigns, or of or by any
person or persons claiming or to claim
through or under them."

5. Lessee transferred disputed land to
Krishna
Chandra
Mukarjee
and
subsequently, vide registered sale deed
dated 23.03.1945 disputed land was
transferred to petitioner of WP-1, M/s
Amrit Bazar Patrika Pvt. Ltd.. Vide letter
dated 02.5.1951, Collector, Allahabad
permitted use of disputed land for
press/business purpose. In terms of lease
deed, lease expired on 28.2.1962. After 18
years, petitioner applied for renewal of
lease vide application dated 14.10.1980.
On the ground that petitioner has violated
terms and conditions of lease in a major
way, a show cause notice was issued to
petitioner on 14.5.1999 which was replied
on
28.5.1999.
Thereafter
Collector
Allahabad, vide order dated 09.05.2005,
rejected application for renewal of lease
and resumed disputed land in favour of
Government. Order dated 09.5.2005 was
challenged in Writ Petition No. 44629 of
2005 wherein an interim order was passed
on 07.6.2005 staying aforesaid order of
Collector/ District Magistrate, Allahabad.
Thereafter Collector, Allahabad has passed
order
dated
18.08.2018
resuming/
reentering upon disputed land for "public
purpose" i.e., for development of "Sports
Field".

6. Lease deed dated 12.5.1915 was to
be construed as per the provisions of
Government Grants Act, 1895 (hereinafter
referred to as "GG Act, 1895"). Petitioner
of W.P.-1 claimed that it did not have any
clause permitting resumption of land for
public purpose by lessor. Moreover, GG
Act, 1895 was repealed by Repealing and
Amending
(Second)
Act,
2017
(hereinafter referred to as "Repeal Act,
2017") notified on 05.01.2018.

7. Order dated 18.8.2018 has been
challenged on the ground that there is no
provision for re-entry/resumption in lease
deed hence question of resumption does
not arise, particularly when GG Act, 1895
has been repealed; State Government
cannot forcibly evict a person from
immovable property which is leased out to
him, without following due procedure of
law
and
reliance
is
placed
on
a
Constitution Bench Judgment in Express
Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. and others vs.
Union of India and others, (1986) 1 SCC
133; Judgment and provisions relied by
District Magistrate/ Collector, Allahabad
in the impugned order are in respect of
different land, which are not applicable to
the land in dispute; Petitioner sent a letter
dated 30.8.2018 after receiving resumption
notice dated 18.8.2018 but no decision has
been taken thereon; Impugned notice has
been given after approval of resumption
granted vide order dated 16.8.2018 by
State Government which is in utter
violation of Principles of Natural Justice
i.e.
without
giving
opportunity
to
petitioner; Writ petition filed by Lalji
Pandey and five others i.e. Writ Petition
No.
36210 of
2018,
dismissed
on
31.10.2018, would not affect rights of
petitioner,
inasmuch
as,
they
were
employees of Northern India Patrika Press,
1202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
residing in the premises of petitioner i.e.
disputed land and writ petition was
dismissed on the ground that they could
not establish any legal right in respect of
land in dispute; Impugned notice has been
issued to frustrate interim order passed by
this Court in Writ Petition No. 44629 of
2005 and, therefore, is a gross abuse of
process of law; impugned order has been
passed without application of mind and on
incorrect facts; the property in dispute is
said to be required for public purpose i.e.
to develop as a play ground; the area of
land is only 3 acres and 45 sq. yards i.e.
12219 sq. meters, which is a very small
area for developing as "Playground"; there
already exists a big garden namely 'Alfred
Park' within a radius of 300 meter, which
is a huge vacant area for development as
'Playground' and there also exists a Cricket
Stadium, which can be used for the said
purpose;
the
grounds
taken
in
the
impugned notice with regard to alleged
violation of condition of lease are same on
which earlier order dated 09.5.2005 was
passed and which is subject matter of
challenge in Writ Petition No.