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

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 788
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-30
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 22076 of 2003
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/roop-ram-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52437
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article - 226, - UP Imposition of Ceiling
on Land Holdings Act, 1976 - Section -
27, 27(4) & 27(6) - writ petition - challenging
the impugned cancellation proceeding of Lease
- St. granted leased of surplus land in year 1976
- St. initiated proceeding for cancellation of
lease in year 1994 - court finds that, impugned
order is based on the alleged fact that allottee
has transferred the allotted plot in favour of
another person without executing sale deed but
petitioner has taken specific stand that he has
never sold the property and he is in possession
of the plot - cancellation proceeding is time
barred u/section 27(6) of Ceiling Act, 1976 - no
counter affidavit has been filed by the St. for
last 21 years - held, ground taken for
cancellation in the impugned order cannot be
sustained on merit and in the light of law laid
down by this court in Dinesh Kumar's Case
impugned orders are liable to be set aside and
lease executed in favour of the petitioner is
hereby affirmed - writ petition, allowed. (Para -
10, 12, 13)

Writ petition allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

Dinesh Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & anr.- 2006 (2)
ADJ 155 (Alld).

## Text

788 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
integrity of contempt jurisdiction
and provide appropriate remedies
for aggrieved parties.

70. If the impugned order is now
tested on the anvil of the principles
summarized above then it would reveal that
the Contempt Court vide order impugned
has neither touched the merit nor has
decided any issue and it has not made any
direction relating to the merits of the
disputes between the parties. Hence, it
cannot be canvassed that the Contempt
Court overstepped its jurisdiction.

71. Thus, in the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, this Court is of the firm
view that the intra-court appeal is not
maintainable. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 788
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-C No. 22076 of 2003

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anil Kumar Aditya

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article - 226, - UP Imposition of Ceiling
on Land Holdings Act, 1976 - Section -
27, 27(4) & 27(6) - writ petition - challenging
the impugned cancellation proceeding of Lease
- St. granted leased of surplus land in year 1976
- St. initiated proceeding for cancellation of
lease in year 1994 - court finds that, impugned
order is based on the alleged fact that allottee
has transferred the allotted plot in favour of
another person without executing sale deed but
petitioner has taken specific stand that he has
never sold the property and he is in possession
of the plot - cancellation proceeding is time
barred u/section 27(6) of Ceiling Act, 1976 - no
counter affidavit has been filed by the St. for
last 21 years - held, ground taken for
cancellation in the impugned order cannot be
sustained on merit and in the light of law laid
down by this court in Dinesh Kumar's Case
impugned orders are liable to be set aside and
lease executed in favour of the petitioner is
hereby affirmed - writ petition, allowed. (Para -
10, 12, 13)

Writ petition allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

Dinesh Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & anr.- 2006 (2)
ADJ 155 (Alld).

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Shyam Singh, learned
Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
petitioner was allotted lease of the surplus
land declared under U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1976
hereinafter referred as Ceiling Act. The
proceeding for cancellation under Section
27 (4) of the Ceiling Act has been initiated
by the State in the year 1994 and by exparte order dated 13.10.1995, the lease of
the petitioner has been cancelled. Petitioner
filed restoration application against the
order
dated
13.10.1995.
The
aforementioned restoration application was
dismissed by the Commissioner vide order
dated 4.4.2003 hence this writ petition filed
on behalf of the petitioner for the following
reliefs:-
8 All. Roop Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
789
" (i) Issue a writ, order or
direction
in
the
nature
of
certiorari quashing the impugned
order dated 4.4.2003 passed by
respondent no.2 and the order
dated
13.10.1995
passed
by
respondent no.3.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or
direction
in
the
nature
of
mandamus
directing
the
respondents not to interfere in
peaceful
possession
of
the
petitioner
over
the
land
in
dispute."

3. This Court entertained the
matter on 22.5.2003 and passed the
following interim order:-

"Learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing
for
the
respondents prays for and is
allowed one month's time to file
counter
affidavit.
Rejoinder
affidavit may be filed within two
weeks thereafter.
List
in
first
week
of
August, 2003.
In
the
meantime,
the
petitioner
if
not
already
dispossessed in pursuance of the
order
dated
13.10.1995
as
confirmed by order dated 4.4.2003,
shall not be dispossessed from the
land in dispute."

4. No counter affidavit has been
filed by State in spite of the time granted by
this Court on 22.5.2003.

5. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that petitioner was
granted lease in the year 1976 in respect to
the land which was declared surplus in the
ceiling proceeding. He further submitted
that proceeding for cancellation has been
initiated in the year 1994 which is barred
by the provisions contained under Section
27 (6) of the Ceiling Act. He submitted that
the
ground
of
cancellation
is
also
misconceived, as such, the impugned order
passed by Commissioner cancelling the
petitioner's lease is liable to be set aside. He
further
submitted
that
restoration
application filed by petitioner has also been
dismissed in arbitrary manner. He placed
reliance upon the judgement of this Court
reported in 2006 (2) ADJ 155 (All) Dinesh
Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Another in
order to demonstrate that cancellation
proceeding under Section 27 (4) of the
Ceiling Act cannot be initiated after the
prescribed period of limitation as provided
under Section 27 (6) of the Ceiling Act.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Shyam
Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the
State respondents submitted that there is no
illegality in the impugned order. He further
submitted that the ground for cancellation
is mentioned in the order, as such, no
interference is required in the matter. He
further submitted that order for cancellation
was passed in the year 1995 and the highly
time barred restoration application has been
filed by the petitioner which has rightly
been dismissed by the Commissioner vide
order dated 4.4.2003. He submitted that no
interference is required in the matter and
writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. I have considered the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.

8. There is no dispute about the
fact that petitioner was granted lease in the
year 1976 in respect to the land which has
been declared surplus under the Ceiling
Act. There is also no dispute about the fact
790 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that proceeding for cancellation has been
initiated after the prescribed period of
limitation as provided under Section 27 (6)
of the Ceiling Act and under the impugned
order, petitioner's lease has been cancelled.

9. In order to appreciate the
controversy involved in the matter, the
perusal of Section 27 (6) of the U.P.
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act, 1976:-

"Section 27 (6) of the
Ceiling
Act-
(6)
The
Commissioner acting of his own
motion under sub-section (4) may
issue notice, and an application
under that sub-section may be
made, ?
6[(a) in the case of any
settlement made or lease granted
before November 10, 1980, before
the expiry of a period of 7[seven
years] from the said date, and ;
6(b) in the case of any
settlement made or lease granted
on or after the said date, before
the expiry of a period of 8[five
years from the date of such
settlement or lease or up to
November 10, 1987, whichever be
later ]"

10. The perusal of the provisions
as quoted above as well as the fact that
proceeding for cancellation has been
initiated after about 18 years, as such, the
order for cancellation of petitioner's lease
passed by the Commissioner cannot be
sustained in the eye of law.

11. This Court has held that in the
case of Dinesh Kumar (Supra) that time
barred proceeding for cancellation under
Section 27 (4) of the Ceiling Act cannot be
entertained. The relevant paragraph Nos.
4,5 and 6 of the judgement are as follows:-

" 4- Admittedly, the initial
allotment of the plot was made by
the Land Management Committee
on 6.3.1976 and was approved by
the Sub Divisional Officer on
19.11.1977, after which the name
of the allottees had been entered in
the revenue records. As such, the
lease was granted in favour of the
petitioner
before
November
10,1980. The specific condition of
the petitioner is that under the
aforesaid sub- Section (6) of
Section
27,
no
notice
for
cancellation of the lease granted
in favour of the petitioner could
thus be issued after November 10,
1987. In the present case, the
notice
has
been
issued
on
18.5.1993.
As
such
the
proceedings for cancellation of the
lease granted in favour of the
petitioner could not have at all
been initiated after 10.11.1987.
The specific averments to this
effect
have
been
made
in
paragraphs 22 and 23 (a) of the
writ petition, to which there is no
denial in the counter affidavit.
5. Even otherwise, in the
impugned order it has been stated
that the land which was allotted to
the petitioner for agriculture use
was being used for building
houses and hence the lease was
being cancelled. In the same order
itself it has been mentioned that
there is no construction on the
said land and thus the very ground
on which the notice had been
issued
to
the
petitioner
on
18.5.1993 that buildings were
8 All. C/m Grih Laxmi Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
791
being constructed on the said land
does not have any basis.
6.
For
the
foregoing
reasons, the impugned order dated
22.1.2002, besides being without
jurisdiction, is also not tenable in
law on merits and is thus liable to
be quashed. Accordingly, this writ
petition stands allowed and the
order dated 22.1.2002 passed by
respondent no.2, the Additional
Commissioner
(Administration),
Meerut
Division,
Meerut
is
quashed. There shall be no order
as to costs."

12.

The
ground
taken
for
cancellation in the impugned order is that
petitioner Roopram has transferred the
allotted plot in favour of one Manipal
without executing sale deed but petitioner
has taken specific stand in paragraph No.
12 of the writ petition that petitioner has
never sold the property in dispute and
petitioner is continuing in possession of the
plot in dispute. No counter affidavit has
been filed by State for the last 21 years, as
such, there is no option except to decide the
writ petition on merit. The ground taken for
cancellation in the impugned order cannot
be sustained on merit.

13. Considering the entire facts
and circumstances of the case as well as the
ratio of law laid down by this Court in
Dinesh Kumar (Supra), the impugned
orders dated 4.4.2023 and 13.10.1995
passed by respondent no.2 are liable to be
set aside and the same are hereby set aside.
Writ petition stands allowed and the lease
executed in favour of the petitioner in the
year 1976 is hereby affirmed.

14. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 791
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ-C No. 24279 of 2024

C/m Grih Laxmi Sakhari Awas Samiti Ltd.
& Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Lavlesh Kumar Shukla, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ayank Mishra, C.S.C., Nipun Singh

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Cooperative
Societies Act, 1965 - Sections 31, 38(1),
38(2), 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71 - Removal of
an officer of a co-operative society -
Secretary and Chairman of the Society -
Validity - Allegation of allotting flat
without taking money from allottee -
Proceeding initiated by respondent no. 2
is wholly without jurisdiction and arbitrary
- No records of deposits being made by
allottee in respect of flat allotted to her,
there is no any evidence regarding cost of
flat being deposited in account of Society
- Legitimate notices were issued to
allottee in respect of which a dispute had
been raised by allottee which was later on
referred to arbitration under Section 70 of
Act, 1965, an Arbitrator was appointed
and before whom arbitration proceedings
are in progress - Under the circumstances,
the proceedings initiated by respondent
no. 2 u/s 38(1) of Act, 1965 on complaint
made by allottee in respect of same
dispute
that
has
been
referred
to
arbitration,
is
without
jurisdiction,
arbitrary and illegal - There is no material
before the respondent to resort to drastic
steps under aforesaid section - Impugned