# Lov Mandeshwari Saran Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 4 ILRA 1229
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-10-31
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 33360 of 2018
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lov-mandeshwari-saran-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44909
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

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

A. Nazul property - Nature and meaning
- Nazul is an Arabic word. It refers to a
land annexed to Crown. During British
Regime,
immoveable
property
of
1230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
individuals, Zamindars, Nawabs and Rajas
when confiscated for one or the other
reason, it was termed as „Nazul property‟ -
It was neither acquired nor purchased
after making payment - In Legal Glossary
1992 meaning of the term „Nazul‟ has been
given as „Rajbhoomi‟ - It is only such land
which is owned and vested in the State on
account of its capacity of Sovereign, and
application of right of bona vacantia. (Para
42, 43 and 44)

B. Constitution of India - Article 296 -
Principle
of
escheat/
bona
vacantia/
Doctrine of lapse - Empowering the king to
take property - Recognized under common
law of England - These principle would
have been applicable prior to enforcement
of Constitution of India - Article 296 has
retained power of State to get ownership of
such land, in respect whereof principle of
'escheat', 'lapse' or 'bona vacantia' applied -
This power continued to apply after
enactment of Constitution with the only
modification that if such land is situate
within the territory of State Government, it
will vest in State and in other cases, it will
vest in Union of India. (Para 46 and 49)

Held - Thus the land in question which is
admittedly 'Nazul', belonged to the category as
discussed above i.e. it came to be vested and
owned by State in its capacity of Sovereign
and right of bona vacantia. When acquisition is
made under the provisions of a Statute,
purpose of acquisition is already known and
State pay its price but when land is owned by
State, which is Nazul, objective of use of such
land is not predetermined but it can be utilized
by State for larger public welfare and its
benefit, as necessitated from time to time. In
other words '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. State cannot be allowed to distribute
such largesse by pick and choose manner or to
some selected groups etc.

Thus, land in question remained with State
Government being its owner. Lease right
transferred to Maharani Janki Kunwar ceased
to continue with Lessee after her death that
too issueless, and in any case after expiry of
term of lease on 31.12.1960.

C. Nazul land - Right of State for
resumption and re-entry - Public purpose -
State has unrestricted power of re-entry to
its own property and, that too, for public
purpose and the above authorities are
applicable to these petitions - Lease has
already expired, which has not been
granted to anyone else. Petitioners have no
claim for conversion into freehold. Held,
right of State to get its own land is not
obstructed

## Text

_Characters 0–39,914 of 85,353. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39914 for what follows._

4 All. Lov Mandehswari Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1229
written statement filed by the petitioneremployer before the Labour Court it was
specifically pleaded that in case the
Labour Court finds any defect in the
enquiry, the management be allowed to
prove the case before the Labour Court
and to lead the evidence for the said
purpose.

20. In view of the specific pleading
having been made by the petitioneremployer
the
Labour
Court
before
proceeding to hold the termination to be
illegal and invalid ought to have granted
an opportunity to the petitioner-employer
to lead evidence and prove its case and
the Labour Court could
not have
straightaway proceeded to hold the
termination to be illegal and invalid.

21. Learned counsel appearing for the
respondent no. 3 has not been able to dispute
the aforementioned legal position and has
fairly submitted that in order to expedite the
proceedings the matter be remanded to the
Labour Court to proceed afresh after giving
due opportunity to the petitioner-employer to
lead evidence and prove the charge.

22. In the light of the foregoing
discussion the award of the Labour Court is
held to be legally unsustainable and is
accordingly set aside and the matter is
remanded to the Labour Court with an
observation that the Labour Court would afford
an opportunity, as sought by the employer in its
written statement, to lead evidence to prove the
misconduct, and thereafter proceed to decide
the issue with regard to the legality/validity of
the termination of the services of the
respondent no. 3-workman, in terms of the
reference made before it.

23. Counsel for the parties have
jointly submitted that they would appear
before the Labour Court and would not
seek any unnecessary adjournment.

24. Having regard to the fact that the
dispute had been referred for adjudication
more than a decade ago it is expected that the
Labour Court would proceed with the matter
and endeavour to conclude the proceedings
expeditiously, preferably within a period of
six months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of the order of this Court.

25. The writ petition is allowed to
the extent indicated hereinabove.
----------
(2019)12 ILR A1229

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. 33360 of 2018
With
Writ-C No. 35154 of 2018

Lov Mandeshwari Saran Singh
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Harihar Prasad Srivastava

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

A. Nazul property - Nature and meaning
- Nazul is an Arabic word. It refers to a
land annexed to Crown. During British
Regime,
immoveable
property
of
1230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
individuals, Zamindars, Nawabs and Rajas
when confiscated for one or the other
reason, it was termed as „Nazul property‟ -
It was neither acquired nor purchased
after making payment - In Legal Glossary
1992 meaning of the term „Nazul‟ has been
given as „Rajbhoomi‟ - It is only such land
which is owned and vested in the State on
account of its capacity of Sovereign, and
application of right of bona vacantia. (Para
42, 43 and 44)

B. Constitution of India - Article 296 -
Principle
of
escheat/
bona
vacantia/
Doctrine of lapse - Empowering the king to
take property - Recognized under common
law of England - These principle would
have been applicable prior to enforcement
of Constitution of India - Article 296 has
retained power of State to get ownership of
such land, in respect whereof principle of
'escheat', 'lapse' or 'bona vacantia' applied -
This power continued to apply after
enactment of Constitution with the only
modification that if such land is situate
within the territory of State Government, it
will vest in State and in other cases, it will
vest in Union of India. (Para 46 and 49)

Held - Thus the land in question which is
admittedly 'Nazul', belonged to the category as
discussed above i.e. it came to be vested and
owned by State in its capacity of Sovereign
and right of bona vacantia. When acquisition is
made under the provisions of a Statute,
purpose of acquisition is already known and
State pay its price but when land is owned by
State, which is Nazul, objective of use of such
land is not predetermined but it can be utilized
by State for larger public welfare and its
benefit, as necessitated from time to time. In
other words '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. State cannot be allowed to distribute
such largesse by pick and choose manner or to
some selected groups etc.

Thus, land in question remained with State
Government being its owner. Lease right
transferred to Maharani Janki Kunwar ceased
to continue with Lessee after her death that
too issueless, and in any case after expiry of
term of lease on 31.12.1960.

C. Nazul land - Right of State for
resumption and re-entry - Public purpose -
State has unrestricted power of re-entry to
its own property and, that too, for public
purpose and the above authorities are
applicable to these petitions - Lease has
already expired, which has not been
granted to anyone else. Petitioners have no
claim for conversion into freehold. Held,
right of State to get its own land is not
obstructed in any manner. (Para 74 and 75)

D. Civil Law - Transfer of property Act,
1882
-
Section
106
-
Tenant
at
sufferance - After expiry of lease, status
of lessee, status of lessee becomes that
of „Tenant at sufferance‟ - „Tenant at
sufference‟ is one who comes into
possession of land by lawful title, but
who holds it by wrong after termination
of term or expiry of lease by efflux of
time - It does not create relationship of
landlord and tenant - Therefore, even a
quit notice is not necessary to be given
and Section 106 TP Act, 1882 is not at all
attracted. (Para 81 and 82)

Writ Petition dismissed (E-1)

List of Cases cited:-

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

2. Pierce Leslie and Co. Ltd. Vs. Miss Violet
Ouchterlony Wapsnare, AIR 1969 SC 843

3. Collector of Masulipatam v. C. Vencata
Narainapah 8 MIA 500, 525

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

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

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

7. Cook v. Sprigg (1899) AC 572
4 All. Lov Mandehswari Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1231
8. Raja Rajinder Chand v. Mst. Sukhi, AIR
1957 SC 286

9. Nayak Vajesingji Joravarsingji v. Secretary
of State for India in Council AIR 1924 PC 216

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

11. Promod Chandra Deb v. State of Orissa
AIR 1962 SC 1288

12. Amarsarjit Singh v. State of Punjab AIR
1962 SC 1305

13. Thakur Amar Singhji v. State of Rajasthan
AIR 1955 SC 504

14. State of Rajasthan vs. Sajjanlal Panjawat
AIR 1975 SC 706

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

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

17. Secretary of State Vs. Narain Khanna AIR
1942 Privy Council 35

18. Md. Wajeeh Mirza vs. Secretary of State
for India in Council, AIR 1921 Oudh 31

19. Sharda Devi Vs. State of Bihar and
another, 2003 (3) SCC 128

20. Collector of Bombay Vs. Nusserwanji
Rattanji Mistri (1996) 10 SCC 150

21. State of U.P. and another Vs. Lalji Tandon
(dead) through Legal Representatives (2004) 1
SCC 1

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

23. Judgment dated 02.04.2013 of Allahabad
High Court passed in Writ Petition No.62588 of
2010, M/s Madhu Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State
of U.P. & Ors.

24. R.V. Bhupal Prasad vs. State of A.P. (1995)
5 SCC 698
25. Sevoke Properties Ltd. vs. West Bengal
State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. AIR
2019 SC 2664

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

1. Both these writ petitions relate to
Nazul Plot No.112, Strachey Road,
Allahabad.

2. Writ Petition No.33360 of 2018
(hereinafter referred to as "Writ-1") was
heard on 29.5.2019 and judgment was
reserved while Writ Petition No.35154 of
2018 (hereinafter referred to as "Writ-2")
was heard on 30.5.2019 and judgment
was reserved. Counsel for parties stated
that both the matters relate to same plot,
involve common question of facts and
law, therefore, we are deciding both these
writ petitions by this common judgment.

3. Sri Harihar Prasad Srivastava,
Advocate, appeared for petitioner in Writ-1
and Sri Pallav Saxena, Advocate, assisted by
Sri Vikram D. Chauhan, Advocate, appeared
for petitioners in Writ-2. Sri Ajit Kumar
Singh, Additional Advocate General assisted
by Sri Nimai Das and Sudhanshu Srivastava,
Additional Chief Standing Counsels have
appeared for State of U.P. and its Authorities;
Sri M.D.Singh Shekhar, Senior Advocate,
assisted by Sri Amit Verma appeared for
Allahabad
Development
Authority
(hereinafter referred to as "ADA").

W.P.-1

4. In Writ-1, sole petitioner Lov
Mandeshwari Saran Singh son of Late
Badreshwari Saran Singh has prayed for
issue of a writ of certiorari quashing
notice dated 18.8.2018 issued by District
Magistrate,
Allahabad
(respondent-3),
intimating petitioner and one Jai Prakash
1232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Ojha, Manager, "The Prayag Upniveshan
Avam
Nirman
Sahakari
Samiti
(hereinafter referred to as "PUANS
Samiti") that lease of land in dispute,
expired on 31.12.1960, has not been
renewed thereafter; State Government has
granted approval for resumption/re-entry
on land in dispute; therefore petitioner
and another should vacate disputed land
within 15 days and hand over possession,
failing which forcible possession shall be
taken. Petitioner has also prayed for a writ
of mandamus restraining respondents 1, 3,
4 and 5 from taking possession of land in
dispute and also to place order dated
16.08.2018
passed
by
respondent-1
pertaining to proposal sent by respondent2 to State Government, before this Court.

5. Brief facts pleaded by petitioner
in Writ -1 are that Plot No.112, Civil
Station, Allahabad is a Nazul Land having
total area of 11,414 Sq.Meters. By way of
an Indenture of Lease, dated 01.01.1894 it
was let out to 'Agra Savings Bank Ltd.' in
Liquidation, situate at Allahabad, on
yearly rent of Rs.120/- for a period of
seventeen years for maintaining and
preserving building standing for dwelling
purpose. The period of lease expired on
31.12.1910. The area of land mentioned
in the Indenture of lease was 6 acres.
Another lease deed was executed on
05.12.1924 whereby aforesaid plot 112,
situate at Thornhill Road, area 2.821
acres, was let out to one Enite Edward
Morean for a period of 50 years w.e.f.
01.01.1911. Some of the relevant terms of
lease deed dated 05.12.1924 are as under :

(i) AND ALSO will not without
the previous consent in writing of the
said Collector erect or set up or suffer to
be erected or set up on any part of the
said
premises
hereby
demised
any
messuage or building other than and
except the messuage and buildings
already erected and delineated upon the
map hereto annexed.

(ii) AND THAT if in breach of
the
said
preceding
covenant
any
messuage or building is erected or set up
or suffered to be erected or set up 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.

(iii) AND will not without the
previous consent in writing of the said
Collector make any alteration in the plan
or elevation of the said buildings and out
buildings 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.

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

(v) AND ALSO upon the breach
of any of the aforesaid covenant the said
lessee his Executors, Administrators 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
4 All. Lov Mandehswari Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1233
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 contain to the
contrary notwithstanding

(vi) 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 constructed 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 tiles.

(vii) And that if in breach of the
said lastly preceding convent 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 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
to the said Secretary of State his
Successors or Assigns the said piece or
parcel of land or ground together will 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 set up within or upon the said demised
premises as the said Secretary of State,
his Successors and Assigns shall desire to
take over 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 understood 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, erections
or fixtures or things which shall have at
any time during the said term granted
under the lease dated 1st day of January,
1894 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 January,
1894 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, erections, fixtures and
things or any part thereof with the land,
1234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and in that case the said Secretary of
State, his Successors 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 arbitrators, the one to
be named by the Secretary of State, his
Successors and Assigns and the other by
the
said
lessee
his
Executors,
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
appointed 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 building,
erections
and
fixtures
shall
rest
absolutely in the said Secretary of State,
his Successors and Assigns as his own
property without any compensation or
payment in respect thereof.

(xi) PROVIDED FURTHER and
it is hereby agreed that the said lessee his
Executors, Administrators or Assigns
shall not assign or underlet or 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
Assigns
(which
permission may be 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 and 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 the purpose of
registering leases and other instruments
of or relating to lands situate within the
local limits of Allahabad (and for the
registry
of
which
assignments
or
subleases a fee of not more than Rs. 16
shall be paid by the person or persons
tendering such assignments or sublease
for registry) then and not otherwise the
liability of the said lessee his Heirs,
Executors and Administrators for the
purpose or subsequent observance and
performance of the covenants on the
lessee's part herein contained, so far as
relates to the portion of the said term or
of the said premises so assigned or
4 All. Lov Mandehswari Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1235
underlet as aforesaid, but not further or
otherwise, shall cease and determine, but
without prejudice however to the right of
auction of the said 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
there shall be any breach or nonobservance 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 buildings and out
buildings 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 but which entry if made shall
not prejudice the right of the said
Secretary of State his Successors or
Assigns to damages 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
or Assigns that be the said lessee his
Executors, Administrators or Assigns
paying the rent hereinbefore reserved at
the times and in manner hereinbefore
appointed, and observing and performing
all and singular the covenants, conditions
and agreements herein contained and on
his 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." (Emphasis added)

6. The lease rights of above Nazul
Plot was transferred by Sri Morean in
favour of Maharani Janki Kunwar through
Management of Court of Wards, Bettiah
Estate, Bihar in 1925. Maharani Janki
Kunwar was daughter of Rai Bahadur
Sidh Narain Singh, Talukedar of Anapur
Estate, Allahabad. She was married to
Maharaja Harendra Kishore Singh of
Bettiah Raj in Bihar. Maharaja Harendra
Kishore Singh died issuless and intestate
in 1893. His first widow Maharani Sheo
Ratan Kunwar succeeded Bettiah Estate.
Maharani Sheo Ratan Kunwar died
issuless in 1896. Thereafter Estate was
succeeded by second widow Maharani
Janki Kunwar. In 1897, Court of Wards,
Bihar, holding Maharani Janki Kunwar
incompetent to manage Estate, appointed
Manager to look after management of
property of Bettiah Raj Estate. The
properties in State of U.P. were being
managed by Court of Wards, Uttar
Pradesh through Collector, Gorakhpur. In
1959, Court of Ward Act was repealed in
State of U.P. and Board of Revenue was
authorized to manage and administer
affairs related with Court of Wards.
1236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. Transfer of disputed land by Sri
E.E.Morean to Maharani Janki Kunwar
was approved by Collector, Allahabad
and she was recorded as lease-holder of
aforesaid Nazul Plot in Nazul Property
Register. On the disputed land there was a
bungalow constructed for residence of
Maharani
Janki
Kunwar,
who
was
residing therein till
her death
i.e.
27.11.1954. The term of lease expired on
31.12.1960.

8. Maharani Janki Kunwar was also
lease-holder of another contiguous Nazul plot
no.114, Civil Station, Allahabad and had one
property i.e. 474, Mutthiganj, Allahabad.
After death of Maharani Kunwar on
27.11.1954, a number of persons claimed
property of 'Bettiah Estate' and filed petitions
before Court of Wards, Bihar to get property
released in their favour. State of Bihar also
claimed aforesaid property through Escheat.
Father of petitioner, Badreshwari Saran Singh,
was minor in 1954. He was grandson and
nearest blood relation of Maharani Janki
Kunwar. Therefore, he also filed petition on
07.01.1955 claiming property of Maharani
Janki Kunwar. The claim of parties over
property of Bettiah Estate of Maharani Janki
Kunwar was considered by Sri M.S.Rao,
Additinoal Member, Board of Revenue and
vide resolution dated 18.01.1955 he held that
Court would retain charge of properties until
dispute is determined by a competent Civil
Court.

9. Petitioner claimed that he, being
the great grand son and blood relation of
Maharani Janki Kunwar, was entitled to
get lease deed executed in his favour in
respect of disputed Nazul land.

10. In the year 1960, when period of
lease was going to expire, Manager of
Court of Wards of Bettiah Estate
requested
Collector,
Allahabad
for
renewal of lease and pursuant thereto a
demand note was raised to deposit
Rs.21,889/- as premium and Rs.202.11
towards yearly rent. Manager, Court of
Wards deposited aforesaid amount by
way of cheque to Nagar Mahapalika,
Allahabad. It was encashed by Nagar
Mahapalika, Allahabad on 31.03.1963.
Administrator,
Nagar
Mahapalika,
Allahabad vide letter dated 18.03.1967
sent proposal to Collector, Allahabad
requesting execution of fresh lease of land
in dispute. Collector forwarded the said
proposal vide letter dated 07.04.1967 to
Commissioner, Allahabad but it remained
pending. Then, Collector, Allahabad, on
25.10.1993 again sent a detailed letter to
State Government seeking advice in the
matter relating to land in dispute. The said
letter is on record as Annexure 5 to writ
petition.

11. Petitioner filed an application in
2009 along with Treasury Challan dated
07.12.2009
to
Collector,
Allahabad
requesting to convert disputed Nazul land
into freehold in favour of petitioner.
Thereafter petitioner filed Writ Petition
No.3970 of 2010, seeking a mandamus
commanding State of U.P. and others to
convert Nazul plot No.112, Civil Station,
Allahabad into freehold and accept
petitioner's
Treasury
Challan
dated
07.12.2009. He also prayed for quashing
of
nomination/consent
letter
dated
25.02.1999 issued by Manager, Court of
Wards, Bettiah Estate in favour of M/s
PUAENS Samiti (respondent-7 in that
case) and application submitted by said
Samiti for freehold of land in dispute. The
writ petition was decided vide judgment
dated 18.2.2010. This Court categorically
held that petitioner has no right to make
any application for free hold. The relevant
4 All. Lov Mandehswari Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1237
observations in the judgment read as
under :

"We are satisfied that the
petitioner has no right to make any
application for free hold."(Emphasis
added)

12. With regard to entitlement of M/s
PUAEN Samiti for freehold right of disputed
Nazul land, this Court did not adjudicate the
same but observed that if said application is
considered by District Magistrate, he shall
also look into the question "whether there was
any right of nomination in favour of M/s
PUAENS
Samiti",
and
"whether
any
nomination or any exercise of freehold could
be made in respect of land in dispute". Subject
to above observations, writ petition was
dismissed.

13. Petitioner then filed Review
Petition No.103754 of 2010, which was
also rejected vide order dated 11.10.2012.
It is said that the order rejecting review
application has been passed without any
logical reason. It is further said that in the
backdrop
of
aforesaid
judgment,
respondents 1, 3 and 4 have not executed
any lease deed in favour of petitioner.

14. Again petitioner made a
representation dated 26.09.2015 and then
filed Writ Petition No.59253 of 2017,
which is pending. Relying on Supreme
Court judgment in State of Bihar and
others vs. Sri Radha Krishna Singh and
others, AIR 1983 SC 684, it is said that
plea of escheat was not accepted by
Supreme Court; property belonged to
Maharani Janki Kunwar and under
custody of Courts of Wards; petitioner
being legal heir of Maharani Janki
Kunwar is entitled to have claim over said
property.

15. Further it is said that State of
U.P. has filed Original Suit No.561 of
2001 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior
Division), seeking following reliefs:

"1. That through a declaration
in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant, it be declared that the plaintiff
is owner of the properties of Betia Rajya
detailed in Schedule 'A' & 'B' which
earlier belonged to Late Maharaja
Harinder Kishore Singh as it has
devolved on it for want of any heir of Late
Maharaja and his two widows.

2. That through decree of
injunction in favour of the plaintiff
against the Defendants, the defendants be
restrained from disputing the plaintiff's
title on the properties in suit and also
from ejecting the plaintiff's forcibly over
the suit properties.

3. That the cost of the suit be
awarded to the plaintiff against the
defendants.

4. That such other or further
relief be awarded to the plaintiff against
the defendants to which the plaintiff is
found entitled." (Emphasis added)

16. Petitioner has pleaded that land
in dispute, therefore, is in the custody of
Board of Revenue. Claim of State of U.P.
on the ownership of land in dispute is
subjudice before Court of Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Gorakhpur; hence,
notice issued by respondent 3 for re-entry
on land in dispute is illegal; it is also in
violation of principles of natural justice as
no opportunity of hearing has been given
before issuing the aforesaid notice;
Respondents have usurped authority of
Board of Revenue, which has custody of
property in dispute after repeal of Court
of Wards Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred
to as "Act, 1959") and notice is also in
1238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
violation of judgment and direction given
by Supreme Court in State of Bihar and
others vs. Sri Radha Krishna Singh and
others (supra).

17. On behalf of respondents 3 and
4, a counter affidavit has been filed
stating that disputed land having total area
of 11433 Sq. meters was demised through
an Indenture of Lease dated 05.12.1924
for a period of 50 years commencing from
01.01.2011 in favour of E.E.Morean by
Secretary of State for India; the lease in
question is governed by the provisions of
Government
Grants
Act,
1895
(hereinafter referred to as "GG Act,
1895"); Lease expired on 31.12.1960; it
has not been renewed thereafter; Lease
deed contained provision of re-entry and
in pursuance thereof State has exercised
its right of resumption/re-entry; though
GG Act, 1895 has been repealed by
Repealing and Amending (Second) Act,
2017 (hereinafter referred to as "Repeal
Act, 2017") notified on 05.01.2018 but by
virtue of Section 4, right, title, obligation
or liability already acquired, accrued or
incurred have been saved; the disputed
land has been sought to be resumed for
the purpose of constructing a 'Multi
Purpose Building' and for functioning of
Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, which
is
to
be
developed
by
Allahabad
Development
Authority
renamed
as
Prayagraj Development Authority (Now
titled
and
described
as
"PDA");
Petitioner's claim for freehold right has
already been rejected by this Court vide
judgment dated 18.02.2010 and the said
judgment has attained finality, petitioner,
therefore, had no right in respect of land
in dispute; property in dispute of Bettiya
Estate relates to property owned by
Maharaja Harendra Kishore Singh and his
widows but property in question was
never property of Maharaja Harendra
Kishore Singh or his widows; Nazul is
owned by State, hence question of title
over land in dispute of Maharaja Harendra
Kishore Singh does not arise; Petitioner
has no right to claim execution of lease
deed in his favour; respondents have
rightly proceeded to resume land in
dispute for public purposes and writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.

18. Writ-2 has been filed by three
petitioners namely Kunwar Udai Singh,
Kunwar Vijay Singh and Kunwar Ajay
Singh, all three sons of late Rajkumari
Bina Singh alias Purnima Kunwar wife of
Late Kunwar Narayan Singh. It has
impleaded State of U.P. through Principal
Secretary, Awas Avam Sahari Niyojan;
District
Magistate,
Allahabad
and
Allahabad Development Authority (Now
'PDA') as respondents 1, 2 and 3,
respectively. They have prayed for issue
of a writ of certiorari for quashing notice
dated 18.08.2018, which is impugned in
Writ-1 also. They have further sought a
declaration that property in dispute i.e.
Nazul
Plot
No.112,
Civil
Station
(Thornhill Road) also known as 7,
Stretchy Road, Civil Lines, Allahabad,
belongs to petitioners and not amenable to
proceedings emanating from notice dated
18.8.2018
or
any
other
action
of
respondents to re-enter and acquire the
same under any law or administrative
action.

19. The case set up by petitioners is
that they are sons of late Kunwar Narayan
Singh (Father) and (late) Rajkmari Bina
Singh alias Purnima Kunwar (Mother).
Sri Kunwar Narayan Singh died on
11.02.1975 and Rajkumari Bina Singh
alias
Purnima
Kunwar
died
on
13.11.2012. Maharaha Harendra Kishore
4 All. Lov Mandehswari Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1239
Singh succeeded to throne of Bettiah Raj
and died intestate on 26.03.1893. He left a
testamentary instrument i.e. 'Will', dated
13.09.1892, in favour of Yuvraj Ramni
Singh.
Will
dated
13.09.1892
was
approved by King of England vide
memorandum dated 25.05.1938. After
death of Maharaja Harendra Kishore
Singh, Yuvraj Ramni Singh succeeded to
the throne of Bettiah Raj. A letter was
issued by Governor of Fort William,
Bengal on 14.04.1937 addressed to
Yuvraj Ramni Singh that order for his
enthronement upon Rajgaddi of Bettiah
Raj would be passed very soon and he
shall be informed accordingly and till then
he must have patience. Later on, Sri Rai
Sahib J.O.N Shukla, Assistant Political
Officer, Dehradun, U.P. sent a letter dated
07.10.1938 to Yuvraj Ramni Singh,
remitting him a sum of Rs.1,55,000/-
towards Annual State Grant for the year
1936-1937. Yuvraj Ramni Singh filed
Original Suit No.428 of 1938 in the Court
of Civil Judge, Allahabad, which was
decreed vide judgment dated 19.03.1947
declaring him Successor of Late Maharaja
Harendra Kishore Singh and absolute
owner of Bettiah Raj. He was also
declared
successor
of
all
rights,
privileges, honours, title and moveable
and immoveable properties of Maharaja
Harendra Kishore Singh of Bettiah Raj.
Appeal No.357 of 1947 filed by one
Bhagwati
Prasad
Singh,
who
was
defendant-11 in the said suit was
dismissed by District Judge, Allahabad
vide
judgment
and
decree
dated
30.07.1949. Some suits were filed in the
State of Bihar and ultimately all these
cases came to be decided by Supreme
Court in State of Bihar & Ors. Vs.
Radha Krishna Singh and others
(Supra) wherein findings recorded by
Court in para 265 read as under:

"(1) That the plaintiff has no
doubt proved that he was a direct
descendant of Gajraj Singh but that is of
no assistance to him so long as it is not
shown
that
the
missing
links
the
relationship
of
Gajraj
Singh
with
Ramruch singh, and Ramruch Singh with
Bansidhar Singh, and that Bansidhar
Singh was one of the sons and that
Bansidhar Singh was one of the sons of
Hirday
Narain
Singh
have
been
established.

(2)
That
the
plaintiff
has
miserably failed to prove that Gajraj
Singh was in any way connected with
Bansidhar Singh, or that Ramruch Singh
was the son of Bansidhar Singh and
brother of Debi Singh.

(3) That Ex. J was admissible in
evidence though of no assistance to the
plaintiffs.

(4)
That
the
documents,
transactions, judgments, robkars, plaints,
written statements, etc. produced by the
plaintiffs are either inadmissible or
irrelevant.

(5) That the oral evidence on
the
point
of
genealogy
is
utterly
unreliable and unworthy of credence.

(6)
That
neither
the
documentary
or
the
oral
evidence
adduced by the plaintiffs is sufficient to
prove their case and hence the plaintiffs
have failed to discharge the initial onus
which lay on them to prove their case.

(7) That the majority judgment
is wrong in law and on facts and has
arrived at factually wrong and legally
incorrect conclusions and, therefore,
cannot be upheld.

(8) That we entirely agree with
the judgment of M.M.Prasad, J. so far as
the plaintiffs' case is concerned.

(9) The plaintiffs have not
proved that they are the next and the
1240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
nearest
reversioners
of
the
late
Maharaja (Harendra Kishore Singh)"

(Emphasis added)

20. With respect to claim of 'escheat'
put forward by States of Bihar and U.P.,
in State of Bihar and others vs. Sri
Radha Krishna Singh and others
(supra), Court said that for the properties
under management of Court of Wards of
State of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, status
quo will be maintained until any of the
State is able to prove its plea of 'Escheat'
in a properly constituted action.

21.

Petitioners'
mother
being
daughter of Yuvraj Ramni Singh, who
died on 14.12.1950, was the only
surviving legal representative but she was
not aware of her rights and entitlement
over assets of Bettiah Raj including
disputed Nazul land. She filed an
application
dated
01.10.2003
before
Board of Revenue claiming release and
handing
over
possession
of
entire
moveable and immoveable properties to
her from management and possession of
Court of Wards relating to Bettiah Raj.
Board of Revenue did not take any action
and in the meantime petitioner's mother
died. Thereupon, petitioners' came to this
Court in Writ Petition No.52820 of 2014
complaining that no decision has been
taken
on
their
application
dated
01.10.2003. It was disposed of vide
judgment
dated
26.9.2014
directing
Chairman, Board of Revenue, to take
decision and pass a reasoned order. The
order passed by this Court reads as under:

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned Standing Counsel
for the State respondents.

In substance, the petitioners
appear to be aggrieved by non-disposal of
their application dated 1.10.2003 made
before the Chairman Board of Revenue,
U.P. at Lucknow.

It is contended that since 2003,
the application is pending before the
Chairman Board of Revenue but no order
has yet been passed thereon.

Having heard learned counsel
for the parties, this writ petition is
disposed of with the observation that the
petitioner's application be decided in
accordance with law by passing a
reasoned speaking order by the Chairman
Board of Revenue expeditiously

It may be clarified that I have
neither
addressed
myself
on
the
maintainability
of
the
petitioner's
application
nor
its
merit
and
the
Chairman Board of Revenue is free to
pass an independent order in accordance
with law."

22. Thereafter, petitioners filed an
application under Section 13 of Bengal
Court of Wards Act, 1879 claiming
release of possession of entire moveable
and
immoveable
properties
from
management and possession of Court of
Wards relating to Bettiah Raj. The said
application has been registered as Case
No.11 of 2018. Petitioner then received
impugned
notice
dated
18.8.2018.
Petitioners submitted reply to District
Magistrate/Collector,
Allahabad
vide
letter dated 29.09.2018 stating that
disputed land and Nazul Land is part of
assets of Bettiah Raj, which has been
succeeded by petitioners and therefore
notice is wholly illegal.

23.