# Smt. Binu Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 1790
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-06
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 4036 of 2024
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, Brij Raj Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-binu-devi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51886
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - revenue law-fisheries lease
executed
between
husaban
dof
the
petitioner and revenue authorities for a
period of 10 years- husband of the
petitioner
died-authorities
refused
to
accept payment of rent by the petitionerSection 108 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006Rules 58 and 59 of Rule 2016-every lease
conferred under Rule 58 shall be deemed to
be an agricultural lease-succession order
under Section 108 of the Code applicablehusband
of
the
petitioner
being
a
government lessee-covered under section
108 of the Code-petitioner being his widow
is entitled to succeed his leasehold rightssection 4(2) of the U.P. Revenue CodeAgriculture includes pisciculture-direction
issued to grant benefits of succession to
the petitioner-Petition allowed. (Paras 7, 8,
11 and 12)

HELD:
This Court has gone through section 108 which
provides for general order of succession to male
bhumidhar, asami, Government lessee and a widow
has a right for such succession. Under Rule 59 of
the Rules of 2016 also every lease conferred under
Rule 58 shall be deemed to be a lease for
agricultural purpose. Therefore, if such lease is
considered to be a lease for agricultural purposes,
then the general order of succession mentioned
under Section 108 could apply. (Para 7)

In Smt. Gyan Mati & Others Vs St. of U. P. & ors.,
bearing Misc. Bench No. 27765 of 2016 a Division
Bench of this Court while considering the relevant
provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code and the
Rules framed thereunder referred to Section 108
of the Code which provides the general order of
succession to a male bhumidhar, asami and
Government lessee and observed that under
Section 108 there are three categories of persons
whose rights in land holdings are to devolve upon
their heirs in terms of the provisions contained
therein and these categories are; (i) bhumidhar,
(ii) asami and (iii) Government lesseet. (Para 8)

The petitioner's late husband being covered
under Section 108 of the Revenue Code, being an
allottee of a Government lease, the order of
succession as given thereunder needs to be
followed. The petitioner being a widow is entitled
to succeed to the leasehold rights of her dead
husband. (Para 11)

We are fortified in our view also by the definition
given of "agriculture" in Sub-Section 2 of Section
4 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 where
agriculture is defined to include horticulture,
5 All. Smt. Binu Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1791
animal husbandry, pisciculture(fisheries), flower
farming, beekeeping and poultry farms. (Para 12)

Petition allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

Smt. Gyan Mati & ors. Vs St. of U. P. & ors.,
bearing Misc. Bench No. 27765 of 2016

## Text

1790 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
arbitrary
or
unreasonable.
In
these
circumstances, this Court finds no good
ground to interfere in the Government's
policy to as to issue a direction for
appointment of the Grand-son of the
deceased
fair
price
shop
owner
on
compassionate ground.

22. There is no illegality in the
impugned order dated 21.03.2024 passed by
the opposite party no. 4 rejecting the
petitioner's
claim
for
compassionate
appointment as a fair price shop licensee
consequent to the death of the petitioner's
grand-father.

23. The Writ Petition lacks merits
and the same is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1790
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Writ - C No. 4036 of 2024

Smt. Binu Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vivek Kumar Verma, Shalini Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey

Civil Law - revenue law-fisheries lease
executed
between
husaban
dof
the
petitioner and revenue authorities for a
period of 10 years- husband of the
petitioner
died-authorities
refused
to
accept payment of rent by the petitionerSection 108 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006Rules 58 and 59 of Rule 2016-every lease
conferred under Rule 58 shall be deemed to
be an agricultural lease-succession order
under Section 108 of the Code applicablehusband
of
the
petitioner
being
a
government lessee-covered under section
108 of the Code-petitioner being his widow
is entitled to succeed his leasehold rightssection 4(2) of the U.P. Revenue CodeAgriculture includes pisciculture-direction
issued to grant benefits of succession to
the petitioner-Petition allowed. (Paras 7, 8,
11 and 12)

HELD:
This Court has gone through section 108 which
provides for general order of succession to male
bhumidhar, asami, Government lessee and a widow
has a right for such succession. Under Rule 59 of
the Rules of 2016 also every lease conferred under
Rule 58 shall be deemed to be a lease for
agricultural purpose. Therefore, if such lease is
considered to be a lease for agricultural purposes,
then the general order of succession mentioned
under Section 108 could apply. (Para 7)

In Smt. Gyan Mati & Others Vs St. of U. P. & ors.,
bearing Misc. Bench No. 27765 of 2016 a Division
Bench of this Court while considering the relevant
provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code and the
Rules framed thereunder referred to Section 108
of the Code which provides the general order of
succession to a male bhumidhar, asami and
Government lessee and observed that under
Section 108 there are three categories of persons
whose rights in land holdings are to devolve upon
their heirs in terms of the provisions contained
therein and these categories are; (i) bhumidhar,
(ii) asami and (iii) Government lesseet. (Para 8)

The petitioner's late husband being covered
under Section 108 of the Revenue Code, being an
allottee of a Government lease, the order of
succession as given thereunder needs to be
followed. The petitioner being a widow is entitled
to succeed to the leasehold rights of her dead
husband. (Para 11)

We are fortified in our view also by the definition
given of "agriculture" in Sub-Section 2 of Section
4 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 where
agriculture is defined to include horticulture,
5 All. Smt. Binu Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1791
animal husbandry, pisciculture(fisheries), flower
farming, beekeeping and poultry farms. (Para 12)

Petition allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

Smt. Gyan Mati & ors. Vs St. of U. P. & ors.,
bearing Misc. Bench No. 27765 of 2016

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.
&
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Standing Counsel who
appears for the State Respondents and Sri
Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the
respondent no. 4.

2. This writ petition has been filed
with the following main prayers:-

 "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus thereby
commanding and directing the respondents
no.2 to 4 not to interfere in peaceful
functioning of the petitioner over the pond
gata no.763 area 1.4700 hectare, situated at
village- Baheriya, Pargana- Godwa, Tehsil-
Sandila, District- Hardoi at the place of her
husband who died for balance term of lease.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus thereby
commanding and directing the respondent
no.3 i.e. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sandila,
Hardoi to allow the petitioner to deposit the
rent of year of 2023 and 2024 in respect of
pond in question as per the lease deed.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus thereby
commanding and directing the respondent
no.3 i.e. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sandila,
Hardoi to consider the case of petitioner and
decide the representation dated 01.04.2024,
sent by the petitioner, contained as
Annexure No.5 to this writ petition, within
the period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

3. It is the case of the petitioner that
her husband had taken fisheries lease over
Gata No. 763 area 1.4700 hectare, situated
at Village - Baheriya, Pargana-Godwa,
Tehsil-Sandila,
District-
Hardoi
on
03.01.2019. The lease deed was executed
between the husband of the petitioner and
the Revenue Authorities on 22.01.2019 for a
period
of
ten
years
(03.01.2019
to
02.01.2019) and the said fisheries lease is
also registered in the office of the SubRegistrar, Sandila. The possession of the
aforesaid pond was delivered to the
petitioner's husband and he started do
fishing therein, but he died unfortunately on
01.06.2022 leaving the petitioner and three
sons & two daughters as dependents. The
petitioner went to the office of the SubDivisional Magistrate, Hardoi for paying
rent for the year 2023 but the concerned
official has refused to accept the rent saying
that the lease was allotted to her husband
and after the death of the allottee, the lease
is likely to be cancelled. The petitioner has
approached the respondents no. 2 by sending
an application on 01.04.2024 by registered
post, but no heed has been paid, and
therefore, this writ petition has been filed
with the aforesaid prayers.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance upon several orders
passed by the Hon'ble Single Judges in
various writ petitions of similarly situated
persons. The judgements rendered by
Hon'ble Writ Court have been collectively
filed as annexure-6 to the petition.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the
State on the basis of instructions sent by
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hardoi states
1792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that there is no provision in the Rules framed
under the U.P. Revenue Code for giving
succession rights on fisheries lease allotted
on ponds of Gaon Sabha under Section 106
of
the
U.P.
Revenue
Code.
The
consequences of the transfer made by an
asami in contravention of the Code are
mentioned and the petitioner's husband was
a lease holder/asami and since there is no
provision for succession the petitioner is
liable for eviction from Gram Sabha
property.

6. The instructions further mention
Section 148 of the U.P. Revenue Code
which prescribes that an allottee has to
strictly follow the conditions of allotment
and since there is no such condition in the
allotment letter or transfer of lease on the
basis of succession, the petitioner cannot be
treated as successor of her husband.
Reference has also been made of Section
108 of the U.P. Revenue Code which relates
to general order of succession to male
bhumidhar or asami or Government lessee.

7. This Court has gone through section
108 which provides for general order of
succession to male bhumidhar, asami,
Government lessee and a widow has a right
for such succession. Under Rule 59 of the
Rules of 2016 also every lease conferred
under Rule 58 shall be deemed to be a lease
for agricultural purpose. Therefore, if such
lease is considered to be a lease for
agricultural purposes then the general order
of succession mentioned under Section 108
could apply.

8. In Smt. Gyan Mati & Others Vs.
State of U. P. and Others, bearing Misc.
Bench No. 27765 of 2016 a Division Bench
of this Court while considering the relevant
provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code and the
Rules framed thereunder referred to Section
108 of the Code which provides the general
order of succession to a male bhumidhar,
asami and Government lessee and observed
that under Section 108 there are three
categories of persons whose rights in land
holdings are to devolve upon their heirs in
terms of the provisions contained therein
and these categories are; (i) bhumidhar, (ii)
asami and (iii) Government lessee.

9.

The
Division
Bench
was
considering a writ petition filed by a widow
and her sons for right of succession to the
fisheries lease on a pond owned by the Gram
Sabha. The lease was executed in favour of
their predecessor in interest for a period of
ten years and there was no violation of the
conditions of the lease, after the predecessor
in interest died and the lease was not being
transferred in their favour and they had
approached this Court. The Division Bench
observed that their predecessor in interest,
namely, Late Chhedi Ram died on
27.07.2009 and fisheries on the pond and
being admitted as a lessee, his succession
would be governed by Section 108 of the
Code.

10. We find in the case of the petitioner
that her late husband was a lesee of Fisheries
Rights of the pond and the lease deed is valid
upto 2029. There is no mention in the
instructions sent by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate of any violation of conditions of
the lease deed. There is also no mention of
any order of cancellation of lease deed after
affording opportunity of hearing to the
affected parties.

11. The petitioner's late husband being
covered under Section 108 of the Revenue
Code, being an allottee of a Government
lease, the order of succession as given
thereunder needs to be followed. The
petitioner being a widow is entitled to
5 All. Aditya Vikram Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1793
succeed to the leasehold rights of her dead
husband.

12. We are fortified in our view also by
the definition given of "agriculture" in SubSection 2 of Section 4 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 where agriculture is defined to
include horticulture, animal husbandry,
pisciculture(fisheries),
flower
farming,
beekeeping and poultry farms,

13. The instructions sent by the S.D.M.
are kept on record.

14. We find that the view taken by the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sandila, Hardoi
in the instructions is against the law settled
by this Court and also against the provisions
of Section 108 of the U.P. Revenue Code
read with Rule 59 of the Rules of 2016.

15. The writ petition is allowed. We
further issue a direction to the SubDivisional Magistrate to grant the benefits
of succession to the petitioner on the
fisheries rights of her late husband and pass
an appropriate orders within a period of
three weeks from the date a certified copy of
this order is produced before him. If any
order has been passed cancelling such lease
only on the grounds of death of the lessee,
the said order is set aside.

16. Till such a decision is taken no
coercive steps shall be taken against the
petitioner.

17. Learned Standing Counsel shall
inform of the order passed today of the SubDivisional Magistrate concerned through
Fax without waiting such order to be
uploaded on the online portal.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1793
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

Writ-C No. 10709 of 2024

Aditya Vikram Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashish Rai, Sri Pawan Giri, Sri Rishabh
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Gaurav Kumar Chand, Sri
Santosh Kumar Singh, Sri Puneet Agarwal

Civil Law -candidature for retail outlet
dealership of BPCL cancelled-lease of the
land concerned executed by only of the coowners-violation of Clause 4 (vi) (a) of the
Dealer Selection Guidelines, 2023 violatedsuccessful application of the award of retail
dealership
outlet-a
lease
deed
duly
executed by all the co-sharers of the
offered land on the date of applicationnecessary-Petition dismissed. (Paragraphs
9 to 12)

HELD:
From all that has been narrated hereinabove, it
is clear that law on the issue regarding the lease
of the offered land is well settled, i.e., for the
successful application of the award of retail
dealership outlet, it is incumbent upon the
applicant that he/she must have a lease deed
duly executed by all the co-sharers of the offered
land on the date of the application. (Para 11)

In view of the facts as narrated hereinabove, it is
abundantly clear that the petitioner was not
having the lease in respect of the offered land in
terms of clause 4(vi)(a) of the Dealership
Selection Guidelines, 2023 and as such, in the
light of the judgment rendered by this Court in
the case of Rahul Singh (Supra), he was not