# Smt. Susheela Devi @ Susheela v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 585
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-01
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 2884 of 2025
- **Bench:** Saurabh Lavania
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-susheela-devi-susheela-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53177
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

order-Order
should
be
speaking and reasoned- entire facts and
relevant provisions were not been taken note ofimpugned orders are unsustainable in the eyes
of law-impugned orders set aside.

W.P. disposed. (E-9)

Cases Cited:

## Text

4 All. Smt. Susheela Devi @ Susheela Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
585
communicate our order to the
Municipal Commissioner, Lucknow for
compliance.

(45) We appreciate the assistance
provided by learned Standing Counsel for
the State as also the officers of the State
Government,
namely-Shri
Raj
Kumar
Dwivedi, O.S.D., Board of Revenue and
Shri
Ghanshyam
Chaturvedi,
Under
Secretary, Government of U.P. who are
present. but we wish that this effort would
have been made prior to issuance of the
impugned notification dated 29.12.2020 so
as to avoid the situation which has arisen in
this case.

(46) The writ petition is allowed
but only in the aforesaid terms, in part.

(47) Copy of this judgment shall be
sent to the Chairman, Board of Revenue,
Government of Uttar Pradesh, Additional
Chief
Secretary/Principal
Secretary,
Revenue, Government of U.P. as also the
Legal Remembrancer, Government of U.P.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 585
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Writ C No. 2884 of 2025

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Paritosh Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta
Non-speaking
order-Order
should
be
speaking and reasoned- entire facts and
relevant provisions were not been taken note ofimpugned orders are unsustainable in the eyes
of law-impugned orders set aside.

W.P. disposed. (E-9)

Cases Cited:

1. CCT Vs Shukla & Bros., (2010) 4 SCC 785

2. St. Project Director, U.P. Education for All
Project Board & ors. Vs Saroj Maurya & ors.,
Civil Appeal No.3465 of 2023

3. Ircon International Ltd. Thru. General
Manager Vs Deepak Yadav, 2019 SCC OnLine
All 4239

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,
J.)

1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar
learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State
Counsel, who appeared on behalf of
opposite party nos. 1 to 5 and Sri Pankaj
Gupta, appearing for opposite party
no.6/Gaon Sabha.

2. The present petition has been
filed seeking following main reliefs:-

 "i. Issue a Writ, order or
direction in the nature of 'Certiorari'
thereby quashing and setting aside
impugned order dated 31/01/2025 passed
in Case No. 1226/2024, 'Smt. Susheela
Devi Vs President, LMC' by Learned
Additional
Commissioner
(Administration-I), Devipatan Division
and impugned order dated 23/02/2024
passed
by
Learned
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,
Bhinga,
Shrawasti
586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Annexure-1 and 2), in the interest of
justice;

 ii. Issue a Writ, order or direction
in the nature of 'Mandamus' thereby
directing the Respondent authorities to
not act upon impugned order dated
31/01/2025 and 23/02/2024 and not
disturb the peaceful possession of the
Petitioner, during pendency of this Writ
Petition, in the interest of justice;"

3. It would be apt to indicate that
order
dated
23.02.2024
passed
by
opposite
party
no.4/Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Bhinga, Shrawasti, is a non
speaking order, which reads as under:-

 ";FkkizLrkfor Lohd`r"

4. At this stage, it would also be
relevant to indicate that order should be
speaking
and
reasoned,
which
are
required in view of the settled principles
of law (Vide CCT Vs. Shukla & Bros.,
(2010) 4 SCC 785 considered in Civil
Appeal No.3465 of 2023 (State Project
Director, U.P. Education for All Project
Board & others Vs. Saroj Maurya &
others, decided on 21.08.2024 and Ircon
International Limited Thru. General
Manager Vs. Deepak Yadav, 2019 SCC
OnLine All 4239).

5. In terms of impugned order
dated 23.02.2024 passed by opposite
party
no.4/Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,
Bhinga, Shrawasti, the entry favourable
to one Rampheran s/o Cheddi, who had
expired about 15 years back, in the
revenue
record
related
to
Gata
No.128/0.3200
Hectare,
over
which
Rampheran was in possession in terms of
'Patta' executed in his favour, has been
expunged.

6. Vide order dated 31.01.2025
passed by opposite party no.2/Additional
Commissioner
(Administration-I),
Devipatan Division, Shrawasti (in short
'Revisional
Authority')
in
revision
preferred by the petitioner in terms of
Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
(in short 'Code of 2006') being Revision
No. 1266/2024, Computerized Case No.
C202408000001226 (Smt. Susheela Devi
Versus
President,
Land
Management
Committee and others), the Revisional
Authority, dismissed the revision. The
order dated 31.01.2025 reads as under:-

 "31.01.2025- पत्रावली आदेशाथट प्रस्त त हुई।
धदनाॅ क 02.01.2025 को उर्यपक्ष के धवद्वान अधिवक्तागर्
न्यायालय पि उपधस्थत हुए, धजन्हे धनगिानी की ग्राहयता के धिन्द पि
स ना गया तथा धनगिानी पत्रावली का अवलोकन धकया गया।

 उपिोक्त धनगिानी उपधजलाधिकािी धर्नगा द्वािा पारित
आदेश
धदनॉक
23.02.2024 के
धवरुद्ध धदनाॅ क
09.08.2024 को योधजत की गयी है। धनगिानीकत्री के धवद्वान
अधिवक्ता का तकट है धक प्रश्नगत आिाजी गार्ा सांख्या-
128/0.320हे० धस्थत ग्राम शाहप ि ििगदवा का सीधलांग कृधष
आवांर्न किीि 60 वषट पूवट िामफेिन प त्र छेदी के पक्ष में हुआ था।
सीधलांग कृधष आवांर्न पि कोई धववाद नहीं है। िामफेिन अपने
जीवनकाल में उक्त र्ूधम के माधलक हुए। कालान्ति में िामफेिन ने
उक्त र्ूधम का धदनाॅ क 16.11.2007 को धनगिानीकत्री के पक्ष
में पांजीकृत वसीयतनामा धनष्ट्पाधदत कि धदया गया, धजसके सम्िन्ि में
नामान्तिर् का वाद तहसीलदाि धर्नगा के न्यायालय में धवचािािीन
है। धदनाॅ क 26.11.2022 को ग्रामप्रिान शाहप ि ििगदवा द्वािा
धजलाधिकािी श्रावस्ती के समक्ष इस आशय का प्राथटनापत्र धदया धक
िामफेिन लावल्द मिे है इनका कोई वारिस नहीं है इसधलए सीधलांग
आवांर्न धनिस्त कि धदया जाये तथा र्ूधम गााँवसर्ा में घोधषत कि दी
जाये। ग्रामप्रिान के उक्त प्राथटनापत्र पि हल्का लेखपाल /िाजस्व
धनिीक्षक द्वािा धदनाॅ क 12.02.2024 को आख्या प्रस्त त की
गयी तथा िगैि धकसी नोधर्स के, उपधजलाधिकािी धर्नगा द्वािा
धदनाॅ क 23.02.2024 को यथा प्रस्ताधवत स्वीकृत धलखकि
सीधलांग कृधष आवांर्न धनिस्त कि धदया गया है, जो उधचत नहीं है।
उपधजलाधिकािी धर्नगा को सीधलांग आवांर्न धनिस्त किने का
4 All. Smt. Susheela Devi @ Susheela Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
587
अधिकाि प्राप्त नही है। अांत में धनगिानीकत्री द्वािा धनगिानी को ग्राहय
कि प्रश्नगत आदेश का धक्रयान्वयन स्थधगत धकये जाने पि िल धदया
गया।

 दूसिी ओि मण्डलीय शासकीय अधिवक्ता (िाजस्व)
द्वािा अपने धलधखत आपधत में यह कहा गया धक प्रस्त त धनगिानी
त्र धर्पूर्ट व धवधिक िािा से ग्रधसत है क्योंधक अवि न्यायालय ने
धववाधदत आिाजी श्रेर्ी-4क उ०प्र० अधिकतम जोत सीमा आिोपर्
अधिधनयम के अन्तगटत दजट किके अधर्लेख में अांकना की गयी। इस
प्रकाि उ०प्र०िाजस्व सांधहता 2006 का प्राधविान सीधलांग
अधिधनयम के ऊपि प्रर्ावी नहीं होगा। प्रस्त त धनगिानी पोषर्ीय नहीं
है,
इसधलए
धनिस्त
की
जाये।
उर्यपक्ष के धवद्वान अधिवक्तागर् के तको को स नने तथा धनगिानी
पत्रावली पि उपलब्ि अधर्लेखों के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है धक
उपिोक्त धनगिानी लेखपाल / िाजस्व धनिीक्षक द्वािा प्रस्त त की गयी
आख्या पि पारित आदेश धदनाॅ क 23.02.2024 के धवरूद्ध है,
धजसके धवरूद्ध उ०प्र० िाजस्व सांधहता 2006 के अन्तगटत धनगिानी
पोषर्ीय नहीं है। पक्षकाि यधद चाहे तो धनयत प्राधिकािी के यहाॅ
वाद प्रस्त त कि अन तोष प्राप्त कि सकते हैं। पत्रावली िाद आवश्यक
कायटवाही दाधखल दफ्ति की जाये।"

7. Upon due consideration the
material available on record as also the
submissions advanced by learned Counsel
for the parties, this Court is of the view that
interference in the matter is required. It is
for the following facts/reasons:-

 (i) A 'Patta' with regard to Gata
No.128/0.3200 Hectare, situated at Village
Shahpur Bargadva, Post and Tehsil Bhinga,
District-Shrawasti, was executed in favour
of one Rampheran s/o Cheddi;

 (ii) The land in issue i.e. Gata
No.128/0.3200 Hectare, detailed above,
was ceiling land and covered under the
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act 1960 ( in short Act of 1 of
1961;

 (iii) During his lifetime late
Rampheran
s/o
Cheddi
executed
a
registered 'Will' dated 16.11.2007 before
the
Sub-Registrar,
Bhinga,
DistrictShrawasti, in favour of the petitioner;

 (iv) Section 131 of U.P. Z.A. &
L.R. Act, 1950 ( in short 'Act of 1950') was
amended by U.P. Act No. 14 of 1987 w.e.f.
14.04.1987. By this amendment Subsection 'd' was inserted in Section 131 of
the Act of 1950. The same reads as under:-

 "131.
Bhumidhar
with
nontransferable rights.

 Every person belonging to any of
the following classes shall be called a
bhumidhar with non-transferable rights
and shall have all the rights and be subject
to all the liabilities conferred or imposed
upon such bhumidhars by or under this Act,
namely-

 (a)every person admitted as a
sirdar of any land under Section 195 before
the date of commencement of the Uttar
Pradesh Land Laws (Amendment) Act,
1977 or as a bhumidhar with nontransferable rights under the said section
on or after the said date;

 (b)every person who in any other
manner acquires on or after the said date,
the rights of such bhumidhar under or in
accordance with the provisions of this Act;

 (c) every person who is, or has
been allotted any land under the provision
of the Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act,
1952.

 (d)[ with effect from July 1, 1981
every person with whom surplus land is or
has been settled under Section 26-A or subsection (3) of Section 27 of the Uttar
Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land
588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Holdings Act, 1960.] [Inserted by U.P. Act
No. 24 of 1986.]"

 (v) After the aforesaid, Act of
1950 was amended by Act No.14 of 1987,
effective from 15th April, 1987 and by this
Section 131-A was inserted. Section 131-A,
reads as under :-

 131-A. Bhumidhari rights in
Gaon Sabha or State Government land in
certain circumstances.- Subject to the
provisions of Section 132 and Section 133A, every person in cultivatory possession of
any land, vested in a Gaon Sabha under
Section 117 or belonging to the State
Government, in the portion of District
Mirzapur South of Kaimur Range, other
than the land notified under Section 20 of
the Indian Forest Act, 1927, before the 30th
day of June, 1978, shall be deemed to have
become a Bhumidhar with non-transferable
rights of such land :

 Provided that where the land, in
cultivatory possession of a person, together
with any other land held by him in Uttar
Pradesh
exceeds
the
ceiling
area
determined under the Uttar Pradesh
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act, 1960, the rights of a Bhumidhar with
non-transferable rights shall accrue in
favour of such person in respect of so much
area of the first-mentioned land, as
together with such other land held by him,
does not exceed the ceiling area applicable
to him and the said area shall be
demarcated in the prescribed manner in
accordance with the principles laid down
in the aforesaid Act.

 (vi) After the aforesaid, Section
131-B was inserted by U.P. Act No.19 of
1995, w.e.f. 14.01.1995. Section 131-B
reads as under :-
 "131-B. Bhumidhar with nontransferable rights to become bhumidhar
with transferable rights after ten years. -

 (1) Every person who was a
bhumidhar with non-transferable rights
immediately before the commencement of
the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1995 and
had been such bhumidhar for a period of
ten years or more, shall become a
bhumidhar with transferable rights on such
commencement.

 (2)
Every
person
who
is
bhumidhar with non-transferable rights on
the commencement referred to in subsection (1) or becomes a bhumidhar with
non-transferable
rights
after
such
commencement, shall become bhumidhar
with transferable rights on the expiry of
period of ten years from his becoming a
bhumidhar with non-transferable rights.

 (3)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in any other provision of this
Act, if a person, after becoming a
bhumidhar with transferable rights under
sub-section
(1)
or
sub-section
(2).
Transfers the land by way of sale, he shall
become ineligible for a lease of any land
vested in Gaon Sabha or the State
Government or of surplus land as defined
in the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling
on Land Holdings Act, 1960."

 (vii) At this stage, it would be
relevant to take note of Section 132 of the
Act, 1950, which indicates that when
'Bhumidhari Rights' shall not accrue.
Section 132 of the Act, 1950 reads as under
:-

 "132.
Land
in
which
[bhumidhari] rights shall not accrue.-
4 All. Smt. Susheela Devi @ Susheela Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
589
Notwithstanding anything contained in
Section 131, but without prejudice to the
provisions of Section 19, [bhumidhari]
rights shall not accrue in -

 (a)
pasture
lands
or
lands
covered by water and used for the purpose
of growing singhara or other produce or
land in the bed of a river and used for
casual or occasional cultivation;

 (b) such tracts of shifting or
unstable
cultivation
as
the
State
Government may specify by notification in
the Gazette; and

 (c) lands declared by the State
Government by notification in the Official
Gazette, to be intended or set apart for
taungya plantation or grove lands of a
[Gaon Sabha] or a Local Authority or land
acquired or held for a public purpose and
in particular and without prejudice to the
generality of this clause-

 (i)lands set apart for military
encamping grounds;

 (ii)lands included within railway
or canal boundaries;

 (iii)lands situate within the limits
of any cantonment;

 (iv)lands included in sullage
farms or trenching grounds belonging as
such to a local authority;

 (v) lands acquired by a town
improvement trust in accordance with a
scheme sanctioned under Section 42 of the
U.P. Town Improvement Act, 1919 (U.P.
Act V11 of 1919) or by a municipality for a
purpose mentioned in Clause (a) or Clause
(c) of Section 8 of the U.P. Municipalities
Act, 1916 (U.P. Act VII of 1916); and

 (vi) lands set apart for public
purposes under the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 (U.P. Act V of 1954).]"

 (viii) It is also relevant to mention
here that there is a Government Order on
the subject matter of the issue, i.e. G.O.
No.258/16(1)/73-Rajasva-1, dated 9th May,
1984.

 (ix) It would also not be out of
place to mention here that according to the
judgment of this Court dated 06.12.2017,
passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No.54990 of 2007 (Matlub and Ors. Vs.
State of U.P. and Ors.), 2018 (7) ADJ 240
: 2018 139 RD 491, the person to whom
the 'Patta' was provided in relation to the
surplus land of ceiling would be entitled to
the benefits flowing from Section 131. The
relevant paragraphs of the judgment are
extracted herein under :-

 "1. The land of Khasra No. 107/2,
area 0.165 hectares situate in village
Haroda, District "- Saharanpur, was
allotted to the father of the petitioner Late
Bundu under section 27 of the U.P.
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act'), after the same was declared as a
surplus holding of another tenure-holder.
The petitioners on 24.4.2006 sold the
property in question to the respondent No.
5 and 6 by means of a registered sale-deed.
However, the respondent No. 5 and 6 were
put to notice by the Additional Collector
Saharanpur that the sale-deed by which
they had purchased the Plot No. 107/2 was
void and, therefore, no title accrued to
them. In response to the notice, the
respondents replied but by the order dated
590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
29.2.2007, the sale was cancelled as it was
found violative of section 131 of the Uttar
Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the U.P.Z.Α. & L.R. Act). As per the
sections 166 and 167 of the U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act, it was held that the land had
vested in the State Government. The
petitioners
who
were
sellers
were
thereafter being pestered by the purchasers
as they were asking for the return of the
sale consideration. This necessitated the
petitioners to file a Revision, which was
decided ex parte on 5.7.2007. Thereafter,
the recall application was also dismissed
on 10.9.2007. Aggrieved thereof, the
petitioners have filed the instant writ
petition.

 2.
The
contention
of
the
petitioners is that after the petitioners'
father was given the patta of the surplus
land on 14.7.1976 then on 1.7.1981, the
predecessor in interest of the petitioners
i.e. their father became a bhumidhar with
nontransferable rights. Section 131 of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 was read out by
the petitioner. It is, therefore, being
reproduced here as under:-

 "Section 131. Bhumidhar with
nontransferable
rights.-
Every
person
belonging to any of the following classes
shall be called a bhumidhar with nontransferable rights and shall have all the
rights and be subject to all the liabilities
conferred
or
imposed
upon
such
bhumidhars by or under this Act, namely,-

 (a) every person admitted as a
sirdar of any land under section 195 before
the date of commencement of the Uttar
Pradesh Land Laws (Amendment) Act,
1977 or as a bhumidhar with nontransferable rights under the said section
on or after the said date;

 (b) every person who in any other
manner acquires on or after the said date,
the rights of such bhumidhar under or in
accordance with the provisions of this Act;

 (c) every person who is, or has
been allotted any land under the provisions
of the Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act,
1952.

 (d) with effect from July 1, 1981
every person with whom surplus land is or
has been settled under section 26-A or subsection (3) of section 27 of the Uttar
Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1960."

 3. Thereafter with the coming into
force of the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 19 of
1995 which came into effect on 14.1.1995,
the Counsel for the petitioner submitted,
the petitioners became bhumidhars with
transferable rights. As the learned Counsel
for the petitioners read out section 131-B of
the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act the same is being
reproduced here as under: -

 "131-B
Bhumidhar
with
nontransferable
rights
to
become
bhumidhar with transferable rights after
ten years.- (1) Every person who was a
bhumidhar with non-transferable rights
immediately before the commencement of
the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1995 and
had been such bhumidhar for a period of
ten years or more, shall become a
bhumidhar with transferable rights on such
commencement.

 (2) Every person who is a
bhumidhar with non-transferable rights on
4 All. Smt. Susheela Devi @ Susheela Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
591
the commencement referred to in subsection (1) or becomes a bhumidhar with
non-transferable
rights
after
such
commencement, shall become bhumidhar
with transferable rights on the expiry of
period of ten years from his becoming a
bhumidhar with non-transferable rights. (3)
Notwithstanding anything contained in any
other provision of this Act, if a person,
after
becoming
a
bhumidhar
with
transferable rights under sub-section (1) or
sub-section (2). Transfers the land by way
of sale, he shall become ineligible for a
lease of any land vested in Gaon Sabha or
the State Government or of surplus land as
defined in the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960."4.
The Counsel for the petitioner, thereafter
submitted that since they were bhumidhar
with transferable rights w.e.f. 14.1.1995,
the sale which took place on 24.4.2006 was
a valid sale-deed and no fault could be
found with it. This ground was raised
before both the Courts below. Specific
argument is also to be found in the body of
the judgements impugned.

 5. However, simply because the
petitioners were entered as bhumidhars
with non-transferable rights in the revenue
record, the two Courts below had held that
the sale-deed could not have been executed.

 6. Learned Standing Counsel
could not dispute the factual and the legal
aspect of the matter and submitted that the
petitioners, in fact, on the date when the
sale-deed was executed were bhumidhars
with transferable rights.

 7. Having heard the learned
Counsel for the parties, I am of the view
that because of the provisions of sections
131 and 131(B) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act, the petitioners had initially become
bhumidhars with non-transferable rights
and subsequently had acquired bhumidhari
with transferable rights and they could
definitely have sold off their land. Revenue
entries do not matter it mattered little that
the petitioners were entered as Bhumidhars
with non transferable rights.

 8.
Therefore,
the
impugned
orders fated 10.9.2007 and 5.7.2009 passed
by Additional Commissioner Saharanpur
and the order dated 28.2.2007 passed by
Additional
Collector
(Administration)
Saharanpur cannot be sustained and are,
thus,
quashed.
The
writ
petition is
allowed."

 (x) From a conjoint reading of
aforesaid and impugned order(s) dated
23.02.2024 and 31.01.2025, this Court
finds that the entire facts and relevant
provisions were not been taken note of by
the opposite party no.2/Sub Divisional
Magistrate concerned as also by the
Revisional Authority, as such the same are
unsustainable in the eyes of law.

8. Accordingly, the order dated
31.01.2025,
passed
by
Additional
Commissioner
(Administration-I),
Devipatan Division, Gonda and order dated
23.02.2024,
passed
by
learned
Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Bhinga, Shrawasti
are hereby set aside/quashed.

9. The matter is remanded back to
the opposite party no.2/Sub Divisional
Magistrate
concerned
to
pass
an
appropriate order afresh, by a reasoned and
speaking order, after taking note of the
aforesaid facts and relevant statutory
provisions. The petitioner would remain in
possession of the property/land in issue,
which would be subject to the order passed
592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
afresh
by
opposite
party
no.2/Sub
Divisional Magistrate in terms of this order.

----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 592
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Writ - C No. 3033 of 2025

Ramesh Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner,
Lucknow
Division,
Lucknow & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mohammad Ehtesham Khan, Shashi Kant
Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey, Hari Anuj
Bahadur Sinha

Civil
Law-Constitution
of
India,1950Article
226-U.P.
Revenue
Code,2006Section 128-UPZA & LR Act,1950-Section
198(4)-The
petitioner
challenged
the
cancellation
of
a
land
lease(patta)
originally granted to him in 1993 for 2
bighas
of
land-The
lease
had
been
cancelled initially by the ADM in 1998 u/s
198(4) of the Act,1950 on the grounds
that the petitioner was not landless
resident of village and was using the land
for
non-agricultural
purpose(petrol
pump)-Despite
this,
he
continued
to
occupy
the
land-In
2023,
fresh
proceedings were initiated u/s 128 of the
Code,2006 by private respondents-After
giving opportunity to be heard, the
District Magistrate again cancelled the
lease
on
30.12.2024-The
revisional
authority affirmed this decision-The court
upheld the concurrent findings of the
District Magistrate and Commissioner-it
was found that the land was allotted in
violation
of
statutory
provisions-The
petitioner
was
found
to
have
misrepresented his residential status and
landless condition.(Para 1 to 10)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. A.M. Allison Vs B.L. Sen (1957) AIR SC 227

2. Grahi Shanker Singh Vs VIII ADJ & ors.(1991)
RD 10

3. Bux Singh Vs Joint Dir. of Consolidation, U.P.,
Lko & ors.(1966) AIR 156 All

4. Om Prakash Vs U.P. SESC Allenganj, Alld &
ors.(1990) UP LBEC 983

5.
Pulukuri
Kottaya
Vs
Emperor
MANU/PR/0049/1946: AIR 1947 PC 67

6. Ram Nihor Vs Addl Commr.(Admin.) ,
Vindhyachal Div. Writ-C No 24211 of 2006

7. Nohar Lal Verma Vs Distt Co-op. Central Bank
Ltd. Jagdalpur (2008) 14 SCC 445

8. Gadde Venkateswara Rao Vs Govt of A.P. &
ors.(1966) AIR SC- 828 Champalal Binani Vs
CIT, W.B. (1970) AIR SC 645

9. Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo Vs
St. of Bih. & ors.(1999) AIR SC 3609

10. Malikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa & ors.Vs St.
of Kar. & Ors(2000) AIR SC 2976

11 Chandra Singh Vs St. of Raj. (2003) AIR SC
2889

12 S.D.S. Shipping Pvt. Ltd. Vs Jay Container
Ser-vices Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors(2003)4 Supreme
44

13. St. of Uttaranchal & anr.Vs Ajit Singh Bhola
& Anr (2004) 6 SCC 800 St. of Ori. & Anr VS
Mamata Mohanty(2011) 3 SCC 437

14. Bharat Singh Vs Addl Comr. & ors.(2017) 5
ADJ
466