# Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 710
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-10
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1004228 of 2006
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52973
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

710 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of a mere technicality, to the effect that the
natural parents of the adoptive child had
acted as witnesses, and not as executors of
the
document.
Undoubtedly,
adoption
disturbs the natural line of succession,
owing to which, a very heavy burden is
placed upon the propounder to prove the
adoption. However, this onus shifts to the
person who challenges the adoption, once a
registered document recording the adoption
is brought before the court. This aspect
must be considered taking note of various
other attending circumstances i.e evidence
regarding the religious ceremony (giving
and taking of the child), as the same is a
sine qua non for valid adoption.

25. The judgment referred by the
respondent No.1 is in regard to the
maintainability of the writ petition that the
writ petition arises out of a mutation
proceeding under Section 34 of the Act and
in the said proceeding the rights of parties
are not decided rather mutation proceedings
are fiscal in nature.

26. The present writ petition has been
filed challenging the order passed by the
appellate court as well as order passed in
the revision, therefore, it cannot be said that
the order of mutation passed under Section
34 is under challenge, therefore, the
judgment relied upon by learned counsel
for respondent No.1 is not applicable to the
facts and circumstances of the present case.
The impugned orders have been passed in
total disregard of the settled proposition of
law, therefore, the same are liable to be set
aside by this Court. The appellate court as
well as revisional court have passed the
orders based on assumption, without
recording reasons and only on the basis of
contradiction in the statement give by the
witnesses, it cannot be presumed that the
adoption deed is suspicious in nature.

27. Most of the facts narrated by the
witnesses are in resemblance and same
cannot be ignored while coming to the
conclusion that the adoption deed is
suspicious
in
nature,
therefore,
the
impugned orders are wholly unjustified,
unreasoned and are liable to be set aside.

28. In view of the reasons recorded
above,
the
impugned
orders
dated
8.12.1996
(Annexure-1)
and
8.5.2000
(Annexure-2) are hereby quashed. The writ
petition succeeds and is allowed.

29. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 710
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 1004228 of 2006

Ram Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
The case involves the cancellation of a land
lease/grant originally allotted to the petitioner's
father in 1959 for agricultural purpose. The
dispute specifically concerns land governed
under the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act,1952. The
main issue before the court was whether an
Additional Collector has the legal authority to
cancel a grant when Section 15-A of the
Bhoodan Yagana Act,1952 specifically empowers
the Collector to inquire into and cancel such
grants.

Headnotes
Constitution of India,1950-Article 226-
U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act,1952-Sections
14,15, 15-A- U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950-198(4)-Statutory
12 All. Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
711
jurisdiction- under Section 15-A of the Act
1952, the power to inquire into a grant
and cancel it on grounds of irregularity,
misrepresentation, or fraud is vested
exclusively in the Collector-An order for
the cancellation of a land grant passed by
an Additional Collector is wholly without
jurisdiction-Writ petition allowed.(Para 12
to 17)

Held
The court confirmed the Additional Collector had
no
jurisdiction
to
pass
the
cancellation
order.The court set aside the orders dated 5
january 1985, 17 August 2001 and june
29,2006. The matter was remanded to the
District collector, who is directed to hear the
case afresh, providing all parties a proper
opportunity to be heard, and pass a decision
within six month. (E-6)

Case law Cited
Prabhu Vs Additional Collector, Sant Ravidas
Nagar & Others [2008) 2 ALJ (NOC) 256
(ALL.)].-referred to.
List of Acts
U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act,1952, U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950

List of Keywords
Bhoodan Yagna Act, Cancellation of Lease,
Jurisdiction, Additional Collector, Principles of
Natural Justice, Ex-parte Order, Mutation, Nonjoinder of Parties.

Case Arising from
Civil Jurisdiction-WRIT-C No. - 1004228 of
2006
Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. Through
Collector Sultanpur & Others
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for parties
Adv. for Petitioner:-
Girish Chandra Sinha
Adv. for Respondent:-
C.S.C., R.N.Gupta

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Sri G.C. Sinha, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Divesh
Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondent.

2. Facts in nutshell are that the father
of the petitioner was allotted some land for
agricultural purpose in the year 1959. His
name was mutated in revenue records and
consolidation proceeding started in the
village. The number of plots allotted to the
petitioner's father were changed by new
numbers. The area of the plots have also
been
changed
by
the
consolidation
authorities as per the spot position in the
year 1982. The consolidation proceeding
concluded and akar patra 45 was submitted
to the Collector in which name of the father
of
the
petitioner
was
recorded
as
Bhumidhar in the year 1989. Father of the
petitioner died in the year 1998.

3. The petitioner got information
during
the
course
of
his
mutation
proceeding that an order for cancellation of
the lease granted to his father was passed
on 5.1.1985 and the Tehsil authorities are
proceeding to incorporate the order. The
name of the father of the petitioner was
deleted from the records on the basis of the
order dated 5.1.1985 on 22.11.2000. An
application was moved by the petitioner for
setting aside the ex-parte order dated
5.1.1985, in which the respondent No.1
filed
his
objection
on
27.11.2000.
Thereafter, the respondent No.2 rejected
the application of the petitioner vide order
dated 17.8.2001. The petitioner preferred
revision before the respondent No.3, which
has also been dismissed vide order dated
29.6.2006.

4. The present writ petition has been
filed
challenging
the
order
of
the
Additional Collector dated 17.8.2001 and
712 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order
dated
29.6.2006,
passed
by
respondent Nos.2 and 3 contained as
Annexures 2 and 3 respectively inasmuch
as order dated 5.1.1985 (Annnexure-1),
passed by the respondent No.2.

5. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the Additional
Collector has passed the order under U.P.
Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952. Under Section
15-A thereof, it has been provided that the
Collector may of his own motion and shall
on the report of the committee or on the
application of any person aggrieved by the
grant of any land made under Section 14,
whether before or after the commencement
of the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna (Amendment)
Act, 1975, inquire into such grant, and if he
is satisfied that the grant was irregular or
was
obtained
by
the
grantee
by
misrepresentation or fraud, he may cancel
the grant.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the order was passed by the
Additional Collector for which he was not
authorized. Only the Collector can pass the
order under the said Act, therefore, the
order is wholly without jurisdiction. He
submits that the order was passed by the
Additional Collector in an ex parte
proceeding
without
giving
proper
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,
therefore, the order is in violation of
principles
of
natural
justice.
Next
submission is that the revisional court has
also not taken into consideration that the
order is ex parte in nature and has been
passed by the authority who was having no
jurisdiction to pass the order.

7. Next submission of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that grant was given in
favour of father of the petitioner in the year
1959 and in the consolidation proceeding,
the name of petitioner's father was mutated
and final publication under Section 52 was
made and akar patra-45 was prepared
wherein the name of the petitioners' father
was present. He further submitted that after
a long spell of time, proceeding was
initiated against the father of the petitioner
and vide order dated 5.1.1985, the lease
granted was cancelled after 26 years and
incorporated after 37 years. In support of
the
submission
advanced,
he
placed
reliance upon a judgment in the case of
Prabhu Vs. Additional Collector, Sant
Ravidas Nagar and others [(2008) 2 ALJ
(NOC) 256(ALL.)]. Relevant paragraphs 2
to 7 are being quoted below:-

"2. The dispute in the instant case
relates to plot No. 899. Petitioner claimed
that the said plot was allotted by Gaon
Sabha to him on 20.5.1964. However, for
mutation of his name in the revenue
records over the said plot on the basis of
said patta, Petitioner filed application in
1989, i.e., after 25 years of alleged
allotment. His application was allowed by
Tehsildar and his name was mutated.
Thereafter, in 1991, Respondent No. 4,
Mata
Saran
instituted
Case
No.
444/326/222 of 1991 by filing application
against
Petitioner
before
Additional
Collector, Sant Ravidas Nagar, u/s 198 (4)
of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, for cancellation
of patta. Additional Collector through the
order
dated
24.9.1998
allowed
the
application
and
cancelled
the
patta.
Against the said order Petitioner filed
Revision No. 57 of 1998. Commissioner,
Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur dismissed
the revision on 23.3.2001. Through this
writ petition order of the Additional
Collector
dated
24.9.1998
has
been
challenged. It is strange that no prayer for
setting aside order of revisional court
dated 23.3.2001 has been made.
12 All. Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
713

3. The case of Respondent No. 4
Mata Saran who filed application for
cancellation of patta was that over the plot
in dispute his house Verandah, courtyard
etc. was situate and apart from him other
persons of the village were also having
their houses. It was also stated that
Petitioner''s house was also situate over
portion of plot in dispute.

4. Both the courts below doubted
the factum of grant of patta in favour of the
Petitioner. It was further held that patta
was also illegal. They also observed that
meanwhile consolidation had intervened
and during consolidation no objection was
filed by the Petitioner. They also took into
consideration the undue delay of 25 years
on the part of the petitioner to apply for
mutation.

5. Under Section 198 (4) of the
Act application for cancellation of patta
may be filed. However, if a case is taken
that patta was in fact never granted then
such question cannot be decided in
proceedings u/s 198 (4) of the Act. For
cancellation of patta, proceedings after 25
years may not be maintainable. However,
the Supreme Court in U.P. State Sugar
Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dy. Director of
Consolidation and Others, , has held that
jurisdiction to grant patta may be seen in
consolidation proceedings or regular suit
also and proceedings u/s 198 (4) of the Act
are not the only remedy for cancellation of
patta. The fact as to whether patta was
granted or not can be adjudged only in
regular suit.

6. If Respondent No. 4 or any
other person asserts that he has got his
abadi/house over part of land in dispute
then the said fact has to be decided by some
court.

7. Accordingly, writ petition is
disposed of with the liberty to Respondent
No. 4 and/or any other person who may be
having his abadi/ house over any portion of
plot No. 899 to file regular suit for
declaration and injunction etc. If such a suit
is filed then the same shall be decided without
being influenced by mutation order passed by
the Tehsildar or orders dated 24.9.1998 and
23.3.2001, passed by Additional Collector
and Commissioner on the application of
Respondent No. 4. In the suit factum as well
as validity of patta shall be adjudged, if such
pleas are raised. It is needless to add that
alongwith suit application for temporary
injunction may also be filed."

8. Per-contra, learned Standing Counsel
submits that in pursuance to the notice, the
father of the petitioner appeared in the matter
and filed his Vakalatnama, but thereafter, he
did not appear, therefore, it cannot be said
that the order is in violation of principles of
natural justice.

9. In rebuttal, in paragraphs 23, 24 and
25 of the writ petition, it has specifically been
stated that in pursuance to the notice, the
father of the petitioner did not appear in the
matter nor has filed Vakalatnama on his
behalf and no counter affidavit has been filed,
replying to the statement of fact made in the
aforesaid paragraphs, therefore, it is admitted
that the father of the petitioner did not appear
nor has filed Vakalatnama in the matter,
therefore, the order is ex parte and without
giving proper opportunity of hearing to the
father of the petitioner or to the petitioner.

10. Learned Standing Counsel further
submits Bhoodan Yagna Samiti is not party
to the writ petition, therefore, the writ petition
is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of
necessary parties.

11. After having heard the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties, I perused the material on
714 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
record as well as the law report cited by
petitioner's counsel.

12. On perusal of the order passed by
the Additional Collector, it is evident that
the
proceeding
was
initiated
under
Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952/ Section 198 (4)
of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act. In the order it has been
recorded that the notice was served upon
the father of the petitioner and in pursuance
thereof, he filed in power in the matter,
therefore,
he
was
aware
about
the
proceeding of cancellation of lease granted
in his favour.

13. In view of the fact narrated in
paragraphs 23, 24 and 25, the above finding
recorded is wholly perverse, incorrect and
not acceptable in the eyes of law. Merely
relying on the statement of D.G.C.(Civil),
the finding has returned on the basis of
incorrect statement of fact, in fact, the
father of the petitioner was not afforded
proper opportunity of hearing in passing
the
impugned
order
dated
5.1.1985,
therefore, he was having no knowledge of
the aforesaid order. It only came in the
knowledge of the petitioner when his father
died in the year 1998 and he initiated
mutation proceeding for mutation of his
name on the place of his father. Then, he
was informed that lease granted to father of
the petitioner has been cancelled in the year
1985 and proceeding was initiated to delete
the name of father of the petitioner from
the
revenue
records.
The Additional
Collector initiated proceeding under the
U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952 and has
proceeded to pass the order under the said
proceeding.

14. The finding of the revisional court
is otherwise that the order passed by the
Additional Collector is just and valid and
he has rightly rejected the application of the
petitioner, being time barred as well as the
finding has returned that U.P. Bhoodan
Yagna Act, 1952 is not applicable to the
case of the petitioner and thereafter,
proceeded to pass the order, dismissed the
revision without considering the fact that
the order is ex parte in nature and order has
been passed by the authority who was
having no jurisdiction in the matter.

15.
The
order
passed
by
the
respondent
No.2
is
wholly
without
jurisdiction in view of provision contained
under Section 15 of the U.P. Bhoodan
Yagna Act, 1952, wherein the Collector is
empowered to pass the order under the
aforesaid Act and due to non consideration
of aforesaid aspect of the matter, the
revisional court has committed manifest
error of law in passing the order.

16. The argument advanced by learned
Standing Counsel that the order is not in
violation of principles of natural justice in
view of the fact that notice was issued to
the father of the petitioner who has filed his
power in the matter. In view of the fact
narrated in paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 of the
writ petition, this statement of fact is
devoid of merit, in fact the recital made in
the aforesaid paragraphs has not been
denied by filing counter affidavit, therefore,
the objection of learned Standing Counsel
is not acceptable in the eyes of law. His
next submission that Bhoodan Yagna
Committee has not been made party,
therefore, the petition is liable to be
dismissed due to non-joinder of necessary
parties, in this regard, it is held that finding
has returned in the order of the revisional
court that the land does not relate under
U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Yojna and respondent
No.2 (Additional Collector) and Additional
Commissioner, who have passed the
12 All. Central Institute of Medicinal & Aromatic Plants & Ors. Vs. Sri Rishi Dev Mishra & Ors. 715
impugned orders have been made party to
the writ petition, therefore, necessary
parties have been impleaded in the array of
parties of the respondents, thus, this
argument of the learned Standing Counsel
is also rejected in view of the aforesaid
reasons.

17. In view of the foregoing discussion
and reasons recorded above, the impugned
orders dated 5.1.1985, 17.8.2001 and
29.6.2006 are hereby set aside. The writ
petition succeeds and is allowed.

18. However, District Collector is
directed to hear the matter after giving
opportunity of hearing to the parties and
may pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law within a period of six months
from the date of production of certified
copy of this order.

19. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 715
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 1005010 of 2006
With connected cases

Central Institute of Medicinal & Aromatic
Plants & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Sri Rishi Dev Mishra & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, Dharmendra Kumar
Dixit

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mata Prasad Yadav

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the challenge to the
"common award dated 15th September, 2005"
passed
by
the
Presiding
Officer,
Central
Government
Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Kanpur, holding that "Central Institute of
Medicinal & Aromatic Plants, Lucknow is an
'Industry' within the meaning of provision 2(j) of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947", and whether
CIMAP, "being a purely research and scientific
organization functioning under the Council of
Scientific and Industrial Research", falls within
the definition of "industry" under S. 2(j) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (Paras 1, 11-13,
17-19)

Headnotes
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - S. 2(j) -
Definition
of
'Industry'
-
Research
Organizations
-
Central
Institute
of
Medicinal and Aromatic Plants is purely a
research organization and not engaged in
any
trade,
business,
or
commercial
activities" and therefore "does not satisfy
the test of being an 'Industry'" under S.
2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - S.
14(2) - Jurisdiction - The funds of the
Institute are derived entirely from grants
made available by the Department of
Science & Technology, Government of
India" and that CSIR and its institutes are
governed by the Administrative Tribunals
Act, 1985 pursuant to Notification dated
31.10.1986 issued under S. 14(2) of the
said Act - Respondents supported the
award contending that the petitioners "fall
within
the
definition
of
the
term
'Industry' as provided under Section
2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947
- Court examined Ss. 2(j) and 2(k) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and
noted that the definition of "industry"
under the Central and U.P. Acts is "one
and the same" - Reliance was placed on
Physical Research Laboratory v. K.G.
Sharma, wherein the Supreme Court
held that an institution engaged in
research "cannot be described as an
economic
venture or
a commercial
enterprise" and "is not an industry".
(Paras-3,4,9,11-17)