# Mohd. Raza v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 837
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-30
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 20118 of 2012
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-raza-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52521
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Uttar Pradesh Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act,1960-Section
11(2)- dispute over the inclusion of land in
surplus land-The petitioner purchased
Khasra no. 53 via a sale deed dated
8.10.1971, and his name was recorded in
revenue records for 1378-1380 fasli yearThe prescribed authority declared 5.59
hectares, including khasara no. 53,as
surplus land in 1974-the petitioner was
unaware and filed objections in 1979-the
appellate
authority
dismissed
the
petitioner claims in 2012-Held, the Sale
deed executed before the Ceiling Act's
cut-off
date,
was
deemed
valid-The
authorities failed to serve notice to the
petitioner
violating
procedural
requirements-Thus,
the
inclusion
of
Khasara no. 53 in surplus land without
notice was illegal, and the appellate
decisions lacked proper jurisdiction-The
court
quashed
the
orders
excluding
khashra
no.
53
from
the
surplus
proceedings.(Para 1 to 18)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

9 All. Mohd. Raza Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
837
as AOR at Lucknow, with this Court. In
that background, about 236 applications are
described to have been made to the
Permanent Committee for conferment of
the distinction as Senior Advocate. Those
are pending consideration. With that
parting observation, both the writ petitions
are dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 837
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ C No. 20118 of 2012

Mohd. Raza ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Tripathi B.G. Bhai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anuj Kumar, Brijesh Kumar Srivastava

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Uttar Pradesh Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act,1960-Section
11(2)- dispute over the inclusion of land in
surplus land-The petitioner purchased
Khasra no. 53 via a sale deed dated
8.10.1971, and his name was recorded in
revenue records for 1378-1380 fasli yearThe prescribed authority declared 5.59
hectares, including khasara no. 53,as
surplus land in 1974-the petitioner was
unaware and filed objections in 1979-the
appellate
authority
dismissed
the
petitioner claims in 2012-Held, the Sale
deed executed before the Ceiling Act's
cut-off
date,
was
deemed
valid-The
authorities failed to serve notice to the
petitioner
violating
procedural
requirements-Thus,
the
inclusion
of
Khasara no. 53 in surplus land without
notice was illegal, and the appellate
decisions lacked proper jurisdiction-The
court
quashed
the
orders
excluding
khashra
no.
53
from
the
surplus
proceedings.(Para 1 to 18)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

1. Shantanu Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors. . (1979)
All LJ 1174

2. A. Kumar Vs St. of U.P.(2011)112 RD 681

3. Ram Kripal Singh & anr. Vs Apar Ayukt & ors.
(2010)111 RD 744

4. Gurumukh Singh & Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
(1990) RD 95

5. Ram Chandra Singh thru LRs Vs St. of U.P &
ors. .(1990)AIR Supreme Court 2186

6. Sonia Bhatia Vs St. of U.P. (1981) LawSuit SC
178

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Tripathi B.G. Bhai,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for
the Gaon Sabha, Mr. Brijesh Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent nos.5 to 15 and Mr. Dhananjay
Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the
State.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the
khasara no.53 was owned by Beni Madhav
son of Jagannath Prasad Dubey, who
executed a sale deed on 8.10.1971 in favour
of the petitioner- Mohd. Raza in respect to
the khasara no.53 area 2-17-15 situated in
Village- Hatwa, Tahsil- Dumeriyaganj,
District-Basti now Siddharth Nagar. On the
basis
of
aforementioned
sale
deed
petitioner - Mohd. Raza came in possession
838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the aforementioned khasara no.53 and
the name was accordingly, recorded in
khatauni of 1378 fasli-1380 fasli. The
aforementioned Beni Madhav has expired
later on and in his place the name of his
three sons, namely, Harish Chandra, Girish
Chandra
and
Krishna
Chandra
were
recorded in the revenue records. The U.P.
Act No.18 of 1973 had came into force
w.e.f. 8.6.1973. Notice on C.L.H. Form
No.4 had been issued to all the three legal
heirs of Beni Madhav to show cause as to
why the statement prepared in C.L.H. 3A,
3B & 3C should not be taken as correct.
The legal heirs of deceased Beni Madhav
filed their respecting objections before the
prescribed
authority
and
prescribed
authority in the three cases registered
against the three legal heirs of deceased
Beni Madhav vide order dated 11.12.1974
declared 5.59 hectare land in irrigated
terms as surplus and the plot which were
declared surplus included khasara no.53.
The proceeding for taking the possession
was started by the State, accordingly,
petitioner came to know about the order
dated 11.12.1974 declaring the khasara
no.53 surplus, filed an application dated
3.9.1979 / case before the ceiling authority
under Section 11 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as
"Ceiling Act") for recalling / setting aside
the
order
dated
11.12.1974.
In
the
application it was mentioned by the
petitioner that petitioner is recorded in the
revenue records over khasara no.53 but
without notice and opportunity of hearing,
khasara no.53 has been declared as surplus
treating the khasara no.53 of the respondent
nos.16 to 18 (legal heirs of Beni Madhav).
Prescribed authority vide order dated
6.3.1982 rejected the case under Section 11
(2) of the Ceiling Act filed by the
petitioner. Petitioner challenged the order
dated 6.3.1982 by way of three appeals
before district judge, which were registered
as Appeal No.20/1982, 21/1982, 22/1982.
The aforementioned appeals were clubbed
and
decided
together
by
the
First
Additional District Judge, Basti vide order
dated 17.2.1984 whereby the appeals were
allowed
setting
aside
the
order
of
prescribed authority dated 6.3.1982 and
ordered that khasara no.53 shall be
excluded from the holding of respondent
nos.16 to 18. Surplus land under the order
of prescribed authority dated 11.12.1974
alleged to be allotted to respondent nos.5 to
15. Respondent nos.5 to 15 (allottees) filed
a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.12319 of
1984 before this Court against the appellate
order dated 17.2.1984, which was allowed
vide order dated 3.12.2002 and matter was
remanded back to the Commissioner to
decide the matter afresh after notice and
opportunity of hearing to the parties
including allottees. Due to the amendment
in the ceiling act, the jurisdiction to decide
the appeal was vested with Commissioner
in place of District Judge, accordingly, the
appeal in pursuance of the remand order
passed by this Court was heard by
respondent no.2/ Commissioner, Basti
Division, Basti, who vide order dated
19.1.2012 dismissed all the three appeals
filed by the petitioner, hence this writ
petition for the following reliefs:

"i. issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned
orders
dated
11.12.1974,
6.3.1982 passed by the respondent no.3 and
the order dated 19.1.2012 passed by
respondent no.2 (Annexure No.6, 8 and
14).

ii. issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to exclude the plot no.53 from
9 All. Mohd. Raza Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
839
the ceiling area which has been purchased
by the petitioner.

iii. issue such other and further
writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the
nature and circumstances of the present
case.

iv. Award costs of the petitioner
to the petitioner.

v. issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
and directing the State Government to
award Rs.13,00,000/- to the petitioner as
the compensation of the land in dispute
w.e.f. the year 1980 to December, 2012 and
further 40,000/- per year till the date of
delivery of possession to the petitioner."

3. This Court vide order dated
25.4.2012 entertained the matter, issued
notice to respondent nos.16, 17 & 18 as
well as directed all the respondents to filed
counter affidavit.

4. In pursuance of the order of this
Court, parties have exchanged affidavit in
the instant writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the impugned orders have
been passed by ceiling authorities in illegal
and arbitrary manner. He further submitted
that U.P. Act No.18 of 1973 had already
came into force on 8.6.1973 and petitioner
had purchased the land in question vide
sale deed dated 8.10.1971 as well as
petitioner came in possession since the date
of execution of the sale deed his favour and
the name was also recorded in the revenue
record. He further submitted that prescribed
authority has illegally included the khasara
no.53 in the statement of respondent nos.16
to 18 and declared the same as surplus
treating the same to be the land belonging
to Beni Madhav father of respondent
nos.16 to 18. He further submitted that on
the basis of sale deed dated 8.10.1971
khasara no.53 was vested with the
petitioner, as such, the same could not be
included in the statement of respondent
nos.16
to
18
for
the
purposes
of
determination of the land as surplus. He
further submitted that the prescribed
authority as well as the appellate authority
have failed to examine the provisions under
the ceiling act regarding sale deed which
has been executed before the relevant date.
He further submitted that respondent no.2 has
erred in holding that the sale deed executed in
favour of the petitioner is benami transaction
as petitioner and the erstwhile owner belong
to different caste and religion so there is no
question of benami transaction in the matter.
He further submitted that the appellate Court
vide order dated 17.2.1984 has allowed the
appeal filed by the petitioner setting aside the
order of prescribed authority declaring the
khasara no.53 as surplus and there was no
challenge by the State against the appellate
order dated 17.2.1984, as such, no right will
accrue to respondent nos.5 to 15 who are
lease holders of the plot in question. In
support of his argument, he placed reliance
upon the following judgment of this Court,
which are as follows:

"i. 1979 All L.J. 1174, Shantanu
Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others.

ii. 2011 (112) RD 681, A. Kumar
vs. State of U.P.

iii. 2010 (111) RD 744, Ram
Kripal Singh and another vs. Apar Ayukt
and others.

iv. 1990 RD 95, Gurumukh
Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and
Others."

6. On the other hand, Mr. Dhananjay
Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the
State submitted that khasara no.53 area 2-
840 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
17-15 was recorded in the name of Beni
Madhav and Beni Madhav was recorded in
the khatauni of 1378-1380 fasli. He further
submitted that the sale deed alleged to be
executed in favour of the petitioner by Beni
Madhav cannot be relied upon. He further
submitted that the notice was issued to the
heirs of Beni Madhav under C.L.H. Form
No.4 to show cause as to why the statement
should not be taken as correct. He further
submitted that the notice under Section 10
(2) of the Ceiling Act was issued on
14.3.1974. He further submitted that the
prescribed authority has rightly declared
5.59 hectare land of respondent nos.16 to
18 as surplus. He next submitted that the
petitioner had full knowledge about the
ceiling proceeding but in order to delay the
proceeding, recall application was filed
later on which has been rightly rejected by
the prescribed authority and appeal has also
been dismissed in accordance with law. He
further submitted that the cut-off date under
the Ceiling Act is 24.1.1971, as such,
petitioner is not entitled to rely upon the
sale deed, which is alleged to be executed
on 8.10.1971. He further submitted that
there is no illegality in the impugned order
and the writ petition filed by the petitioner
is liable to be dismissed.

7. Mr. Brijesh Kumar Srivastava,
learned counsel for the respondent nos.5 to
15 submitted that khasara no.53 area 0-1518 was rightly declared surplus vide order
dated 11.12.1974 and the same has been
allotted to respondent nos.5 to 15. He next
submitted
that
during
consolidation
operation, the name of respondent nos.5 to
15 has been recorded and C.H. Form 45
was also prepared in the name of
respondent nos.5 to 15. He further
submitted that respondent nos.5 to 15 has
been accordingly recorded in the khatauni
of 1412-1417 fasli as well as 1418-1423
fasli. He further submitted that respondent
nos.5 to 15 have also filed an objection
under
Section
9
A
(2)
of
U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and
Consolidation Officer vide order dated
2.1.1985 directed to expunge the name of
the petitioner from the revenue records. He
further submitted that the petitioner has
challenged the order of the Consolidation
Officer dated 2.1.1985 and the same has
attained finality between the petitioner and
respondent no.5. He next submitted that no
cancellation proceeding has been initiated
under Section 27 (4) of the Ceiling Act by
anybody, as such, the lease executed in
favour of respondent nos.5 to 15 in respect
to the surplus land cannot be ignored or
cancelled by any authority. In support of
his argument, he placed reliance upon the
judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, which
are as follows:

"i. AIR 1990 Supreme Court
2186, Ram Chandra Singh (dead) through
legal heirs vs. State of U.P. and Others.

ii. 1981 LawSuit (SC) 178, Sonia
Bhatia vs. State of Uttar Pradesh."

8. I have considered the argument
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.

9. There is no dispute about the fact
that prescribed authority has declared 5.59
hectare land in irrigated terms as surplus
including Khasara no.53 vide order dated
11.12.1974. There is also no dispute about
the fact that prescribed authority vide order
dated 6.3.1982 dismissed the case filed by
petitioner under Section 11 (2) of the
Ceiling Act but the appeal filed by the
petitioner
against
the
order
dated
11.12.1974 was allowed by the appellate
authority vide order dated 17.2.1984 but in
writ petition filed by respondent nos.5 to
9 All. Mohd. Raza Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
841
15, the appellate order dated 17.2.1984 was
set aside and matter was remanded back
before the appellate Court to decide the
appeal afresh. There is also not dispute
about the fact that after remand order
passed by this Court, the appellate authority
has dismissed the appeal filed by the
petitioner vide order dated 19.1.2012.

10.
In
order
to
appreciate
the
controversy involved in the matter, perusal
of Section 5 (6) of the Uttar Pradesh
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act, 1960 will be relevant for perusal,
which is as under:

"(6) In determining the ceiling
area applicable to a tenure-holder, any
transfer of land made after the twentyfourth day of January, 1971 which but for
the transfer would have been declared
surplus land under this Act, shall be
ignored and not taken into account ;

(a) a transfer in favour of any
person (including Government) referred to
in sub-section (2);

(b) a transfer proved to the
satisfaction of the prescribed authority to
be in good faith and for adequate
consideration and under an irrevocable
instrument not being a benami transaction
or for the immediate or deferred benefit of
the tenure-holder or other members of his
family.

[Explanation I - For the purposes
of this sub-section, the expression transfer
of land made after the twenty-fourth day of
January, 1971, includes -

[(a) a declaration of a person as
a co-tenure-holder made after the twentyfourth day of January, 1971, in a suit, or
proceeding irrespective of whether such
suit or proceeding was pending on or was
instituted after the twenty-fourth day of
January, 1971] ;
[(b)
any
admission,
acknowledgment,
relinquishment or declaration in favour of
a person to the life effect, made in any
other deed or instrument or in any other
manner.

Explanation II The burden of
proving that a case falls within clause (b)
of the proviso shall rest with the party
claiming its benefit."

11. Perusal of the record demonstrates
that the petitioner is claiming right on the
basis of sale deed executed in his favour on
8.10.1971 in respect to the khasara no.53
area 2-17-15 from its recorded tenure
holder Beni Madhav and the name of the
petitioner was ordered to be recorded in
case no.329 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Office, Dumeriyaganj. Entry has been
made in the remark column of the khatauni
of 1378-1380 fasli. Petitioner is claiming
that after enforcement of Act No.18 of
1973 w.e.f. 8.6.1973, the sale deed
executed on 8.10.1971 in favour of the
petitioner is well protected. The record also
demonstrates that the objection under
Section 11 (2) of the Ceiling Act filed by
the petitioner has been dismissed by the
prescribed authority and the appeal has also
been dismissed holding that transaction of
the petitioner is benami and no reliance can
be placed upon the same as the same has
been
executed
after
24.1.1971.
The
reasoning given under the impugned order
cannot be sustained as the sale deed has
been executed before 8.6.1973, as such, the
same is well protected.

12. In the instant matter petitioner is
claiming right on the basis of sale deed
executed on 8.10.1971 by recorded owner,
which is well before the relevant dated
8.6.1973
and
notice
was
issued
to
respondent nos.16 to 18 on 14.3.1974 for
show cause in C.L.H. Form- 3A, 3B & 3C,
842 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as such, the sale deed executed on
8.10.1971 cannot be ignored by ceiling
authorities coupled with the fact that name
of the petitioner came in remark coloumn
of Khatauni of 1378 fasli to 1380 fasli
(1970-71 to 1972-73).

13. The Full Bench of this Court in the
case of Shantanu Kumar (supra) has held
that failure to serve notice of the ceiling
proceeding on transferee from tenureholder is illgal. Paragraph Nos.7 to 12 of
the full Bench in Shantanu Kumar (supra)
will be relevant for perusal, which are as
under:

"7. Section 9 of the Act provides
for a general notice to tenure-holders
holding land in excess of ceiling area for
submission of statement in the prescribed
form within thirty days of the publication of
the general notice in the official gazette. So
every tenure-holder who holds land in
excess of ceiling area is required to furnish
a statement mentioned in Section 9 and
every such tenure-holder who has failed to
submit such statement has to be served with
a notice under Section 10(2).

8. Rule 8 provides for service of
notice on every tenure-holder to show
cause within fifteen days why the aforesaid
statement prepared by the prescribed
Authority be not taken as correct. Proviso
to this rule then provides:

Provided
that
where
the
statement in C.L.H. Form 3 also includes
land ostensibly held in the name of any
other person, the prescribed authority shall
cause to be served upon such other person
a notice in C.L.H. Form 4 together with a
copy of the statement in C.L.H. Form 3
calling upon him to show cause within a
period of 15 days from the date of service
of the notice why the aforesaid statement be
not taken as correct....

9. It is thus evident that the notice
requiring the tenure-holder to show cause
why the statement prepared by the
Prescribed Authority be not taken as
correct is to be issued to the tenure-holder
in respect of whose holding the statement
has been prepared. Under the proviso, the
Prescribed Authority shall cause to be
served a notice to the person in whose
name the land included in C.L.H. Form 3 is
ostensibly held. The Prescribed Authority
prepares the statement on the basis of
revenue records. If from the revenue
records
or
other
information,
the
Prescribed Authority comes to know that
the land included in the statement in C.L.H.
Form 3 includes land ostensibly held in the
name of any other person, the Prescribed
Authority is bound to serve notice on such
person. The phrase used is 'shall cause to
be served'.

10. The Petitioner claimed under
a sale deed. It is not disputed that the
Petitioner's name was recorded in the
revenue papers over the land which was
transferred to him. It is admitted that the
statement in C.L.H. Form 3 included the
land held by the Petitioner. He was hence a
person in whose name some part of the
land mentioned in the statement was
believed by the Prescribed Authority to be
ostensibly held. In this situation, it was
incumbent upon the Prescribed Authority to
serve upon the Petitioner the requisite
notice together with a copy of the statement
and call upon him to show cause why that
statement be not taken as correct.

11. It is obvious that service of
such a notice is preliminary to the
acquisition of jurisdiction to proceed in the
matter and decide whether the land
ostensibly held in the name of the
Petitioner could be declared as surplus
land in the hands of Bhupendra Singh. In
the premises, the proceedings were without
9 All. Mohd. Raza Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
843
jurisdiction and void. Learned Standing
Counsel submitted that the Petitioner had
knowledge and he should have filed an
objection under Section 11(2) of the Act as
has been held by a Division Bench of this
Court in Dilbagh Singh v. The State of
Uttar Pradesh 1978 AWC 393. The
existence of another remedy under the Act
cannot validate the proceedings which are
void for lack of jurisdiction and which have
resulted in the declaration as surplus land
of an area which a person other than the
tenure holder who has been heard, claims.
The fact that the Petitioner could have filed
an objection under Section 11(2) will not
breathe life into or validate these dead
proceedings.

12. It was urged that since the
Petitioner knew of these proceedings he
kept silent all this while, this Court need
not interfere in exercise of its discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. It is well settled that an
objection to lack of jurisdiction can be
taken at any stage of the proceedings and
even in collateral proceedings (See Kiran
Singh v. Chaman Paswan : AIR 1954 SC
340). Consent or waiver cannot be a
ground for refusing to entertain such an
objection. We hence cannot deny relief to
the Petitioner on the ground of alternative
remedy. It is equally settled that existence
of jurisdiction cannot be conferred by
consent or waiver. This plea is only
relevant to the exercise of jurisdiction.
Here there was lack of jurisdiction by
reason of non-compliance of the first
proviso to Rule 8."

14. This Court in the case of A.
Kumar (supra) has held that ceiling limits
are to be determined with reference to the
relevant date i.e. 8.6.1973. Paragraph no.5
of the judgment of this Court in A.Kumar
(supra) will be relevant for perusal, which
is as under:

"5. I am in agreement with the
findings so recorded. If user of the land has
been changed by the tenure holder
subsequent to 8th June, 1973 then such
land cannot be excluded from the tenure
holding for the purpose of determination of
ceiling limits. The Petitioners are not
entitled to reduction in area because of
such change in the user of land after 8th
June, 1973. The ceiling limits are to be
determined with reference to the relevant
date i.e. 8th June, 1973 and the land held
on the said date for the agricultural
purposes. In absence of any evidence
having been brought on record by the
Petitioners to establish that the land was
being so used prior to 08th June, 1973, the
authorities are legally justified in rejecting
the contention so raised."

15. This Court in the case of Ram
Kripal Singh (supra) has held that any
patta executed in respect to the land ceased
to be surplus is illegal. Paragraph no.8 of
the judgement rendered in Ram Kripal
Singh (supra) will be relevant for perusal,
which is as under:

"8. It is to be noted that any patta
executed by the District Collector would be
a nullity and void on account of the fact
that the land in question has been restored
back to the petitioners vide order dated
31.8.1984 and thereafter right to retain the
land was vested with the petitioners. There
was no right vested with the opposite
parties to execute patta in respect of the
land which was not surplus at any point of
time. If any patta has been executed, then
the same would be deemed to be a nullity.
The proposition of law laid down by this
Court in the case of Brijendra Pratap
844 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Bahadur Singh (supra) goes to indicate
that the identical controversy was involved
in the said case and this Court observed
that in view of the provisions of section 14
of the Act, the land was not surplus as the
order stood modified.

Relevant para-8 of the aforesaid
judgment is reproduced hereunder:

8. Section 14 of the Act provides
that the land will be surplus only after the
decision in appeal under section 13. The
action of the Prescribed Authority in taking
the possession of the surplus land was
wholly illegal and against the provisions of
the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act. The Prescribed Authority
even after the decision of the appeal failed
to restore the possession of the land to the
petitioners and rejected the application of
the
petitioners
dated
28.1.1983
for
restoration of possession in a most illegal
manner by its order dated 1.3.1984 and
again committed error while rejecting the
review petition by order dated 6.3.1987.
The petitioners have been deprived by the
State in a most arbitrary manner. The
arguments
of
the
learned
Counsel
appearing on behalf of the State that the
land has been allotted to the different
persons and they are not party in the
instant petition can not be accepted. It is
the State who has taken over the possession
of the land during the pendency of the
appeal although the land was not declared
as surplus in view of Section 14 of the Act.
If any lease has been granted/issued by the
Collector on behalf of State Government of
the land in dispute that is null and void and
lease holders have no title or interest over
the land. The Board of Revenue has also
issued Government Order dated 6.3.1981,
a copy of which has been annexed along
with the writ petition also provides that the
Prescribed Authority is competent to
dispossess the lease holders and restore the
possession to the original tenure holders
whenever the order of the Prescribed
Immaturity has been modified by any
competent Court. In the instant case, the
application was moved by the petitioners
before
the
Prescribed
Authority
for
restoration of the possession but the
Prescribed
Authority
has
failed
to
discharge his duty."

16. So far as the execution of the lease
in favour of respondent nos.5 to 15 is
concerned, the same is always subject to
the right & title of the State. Since, the
Court is holding that the khasara no.53,
which was purchased by the petitioner by
way of sale deed executed on 8.10.1971
cannot be declared surplus without notice
and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,
as such, respondent nos.5 to 15 cannot
claim any right on the basis of lease deed.
No useful purpose will be served by
remanding the matter again before the
prescribed authority or the appellate
authority as earlier also the matter has been
remanded by this Court to decide the
appeal afresh. The litigation cannot be kept
pending in Court for unlimited period
rather to finalize the same on the basis of
evidence on record as well as considering
the ratio of law laid down by this Court as
quoted above.

17. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, the impugned
order dated 6.3.1982 passed by respondent
no.3 as well as order dated 19.1.2012
passed by respondent no.2 are liable to be
set aside and the same are hereby set aside.
The impugned order dated 11.12.1974 so
far as it relates to Khasara No.53 is also set
aside and Khasara No.53 is excluded from
ceiling proceeding.

18. The writ petition stands allowed.
9 All. Baroda U.P. Bank Vs. Komal Ram & Ors.
845

19. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 845
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ C No. 20839 of 2024
With
Writ C No. 20841 of 2024

Baroda U.P. Bank ...Petitioner
Versus
Komal Ram & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mr. Gyan Prakash Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Shubham Kumar, Mr. Anant Kumar
Tiwari

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950Article 226- Payment of Gratuity Act,
1972-Section 4(6)-The respondents were
employees of Baroda U.P. bank-both were
dismissed
from
service
for
financial
irregularities-respondents
filed
claims
under the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972
for gratuity payment for their years of
service before dismissal-Held, gratuity is a
statutory
right
under
the
Act,1972respondents were entitled to gratuity as
forfeiture provisions were not applied by
the bank and gratuity cannot be withheld
without
following
statutory
forfeiture
procedures as forfeiture provisions were
nto
invoked
by
the
bank
during
disciplinary
proceedings-Orders
of
controlling
and
appellate
authorities
granting
gratuity
and
interest
were
upheld.(Para 1 to 22)

The writ petitions are dismissed. (E-6)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1.
Heard
Mr.
Gyan
Prakash
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner, Mr. Shubham Kumar, learned
counsel for respondent nos. 1/1 to 1/5, Mr.
Anant Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for
respondent nos. 2 & 3 in the leading
petition and Mr. Gyan Prakash Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sri
Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for
respondent no.1, Mr. Anant Kumar Tiwari,
learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3
in the connected petition, i.e. Writ C
No.20841 of 2024.

2. With the consent of learned counsel
for the parties, both the aforesaid writ
petitions are being heard finally without
inviting counter affidavits in the matter.

3. Since common issues are involved
in both the writ petitions, same are being
disposed of by a common order. The facts
stated in Writ C No.20839 of 2024 shall be
treated as a leading petition.

4. Brief facts of the case stated in the
leading
petition
are
that
erstwhile
Purvanchal Bank, Kashi Gomti Samyut
Gramin Bank are now amalgamated vide
Government Notification No.3837 dated
26.11.2019 and assigned the new name
"Baroda U.P. Bank". The Baroda U.P.
Bank came into existence w.e.f. 1.4.2020.
The employees who were working under
erstwhile Kashi Gomti Samyut Gramin
Bank, now Baroda U.P. Bank are governed
by Baroda U.P. Bank (Officer and
Employees) Service Regulations, 2020. In
respect to payment of gratuity, there exists
Regulation No.72 for payment of gratuity
in the Purvanchal Gramin Bank (Officers &
Employees), Service Regulations, 2010,
now Baroda U.P. Bank (Officers &
Employees) Service Regulations, 2020.
Under Chapter 4 of Regulation, 2010, there