# Sone Lal v. The Union Of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 166
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-06
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 38168 of 2025
- **Bench:** Saral Srivastava, Sudhanshu Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sone-lal-v-the-union-of-india-ors-52770
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A.S.G.I., Yash Padia

Issue for Consideration
The primary issue was whether the petitioner
was correctly reclassified form Group 1 to Group
3 regarding his offered land for retail outlet. The
dispute centered on Clause 10 of the petitioner's
lease deed, which stated that the lease would
automatically cancel if the petrol pump was not
allotted to him.

Headnotes
A. Civil matter-Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Land Categorization-A lease
deed containing a clause for "automatic
termination" upon non-allotment of a
petrol pump creates a conditional title-If
an applicant is not selected in the initial
draw
of
lots,
a
clause
mandating
automatic
cancellation
upon
nonallotment
becomes
active,
potentially
rendering the lease void for subsequent
draws unless rectified-The court agreed
that the Corporation should not be forced
to invest in a "Company Funded Outlet"
where the lessor could potentially evict
the
petitioner
ude
to
the
triggered
cancellation clause.
Held
The court held that the Clause 10 was
"unambiguous and clear". Since the petitioner
was not selected in the first or second draw of
lots, the lease deed technically stood terminated
as per its own terms-The court distinguished
this case from "Shankar Kumar Bhagat Vs
IOCL",noting that in that case, the petitioner
had executed a rectification deed to clarify the
lease period, which was absent here-Oil
Manufacturing Companies are not required to
make heavy investments on land where the
lease title is under cloud or subject to easy
eviction by a lessor.(Para 15 to 28)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-6)
11 All. Sone Lal Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
167
Case law Cited
Shankar Kumar Bhagat Vs. the Indian Oil
Corporation Limited. AIR 2020 Patna 127

List of Acts
Constitution of India,1950

List of Keywords
Retail Outlet, Brochure of Selection, Group1
Land, Lease Deed, Draws of Lots, Provisional
Selection, SCheme Corpus Fund, Automatic
Terminationn Clause, unamiguous, lessor, IOCL

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION: Writ C No. 38168 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.11.
2025 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.

Sone Lal Vs. The Union Of India & Ors.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Petitioner:
Rajneesh Kumar Singh

## Text

166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
recently reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Savita vs. Satyabhan
Dixit, Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No.31322 of 2025, decided on 07.11.2025.

20.
In
view
of
the
aforesaid
discussion, it is evident that use of three
Aadhaar cards to withdraw ration of 697
cardholders has not been reasonably
explained by the petitioner. There is
nothing on record to show that 162
affidavits filed by the petitioner, accepting
receipt of essential commodities from her,
are from 697 cardholders, whose ration has
been
withdrawn
by
resorting
to
interpolation.
Even
though,
162
cardholders
accept
receipt
of
ration
regularly, petitioner cannot be obliterated
from showing that, the use of three
Aadhaar Card numbers for 697 cardholders
was not her own volition. In absence of any
specific pleadings alleging mala fides
against
the
Officers
of
the
State
Government, by name, the argument of the
learned counsel for the Petitioner that,
Official of the department have committed
gross irregularities and in order to save
their skin, they are placing burden upon the
petitioner by lodging false FIR and
resorting to cancellation of licence, falls
flat.

21. The writ petition being devoid of
merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 166
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

Writ C No. 38168 of 2025
Sone Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
The Union Of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rajneesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Yash Padia

Issue for Consideration
The primary issue was whether the petitioner
was correctly reclassified form Group 1 to Group
3 regarding his offered land for retail outlet. The
dispute centered on Clause 10 of the petitioner's
lease deed, which stated that the lease would
automatically cancel if the petrol pump was not
allotted to him.

Headnotes
A. Civil matter-Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Land Categorization-A lease
deed containing a clause for "automatic
termination" upon non-allotment of a
petrol pump creates a conditional title-If
an applicant is not selected in the initial
draw
of
lots,
a
clause
mandating
automatic
cancellation
upon
nonallotment
becomes
active,
potentially
rendering the lease void for subsequent
draws unless rectified-The court agreed
that the Corporation should not be forced
to invest in a "Company Funded Outlet"
where the lessor could potentially evict
the
petitioner
ude
to
the
triggered
cancellation clause.
Held
The court held that the Clause 10 was
"unambiguous and clear". Since the petitioner
was not selected in the first or second draw of
lots, the lease deed technically stood terminated
as per its own terms-The court distinguished
this case from "Shankar Kumar Bhagat Vs
IOCL",noting that in that case, the petitioner
had executed a rectification deed to clarify the
lease period, which was absent here-Oil
Manufacturing Companies are not required to
make heavy investments on land where the
lease title is under cloud or subject to easy
eviction by a lessor.(Para 15 to 28)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-6)
11 All. Sone Lal Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
167
Case law Cited
Shankar Kumar Bhagat Vs. the Indian Oil
Corporation Limited. AIR 2020 Patna 127

List of Acts
Constitution of India,1950

List of Keywords
Retail Outlet, Brochure of Selection, Group1
Land, Lease Deed, Draws of Lots, Provisional
Selection, SCheme Corpus Fund, Automatic
Terminationn Clause, unamiguous, lessor, IOCL

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION: Writ C No. 38168 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.11.
2025 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.

Sone Lal Vs. The Union Of India & Ors.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Petitioner:
Rajneesh Kumar Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.)
&
(Hon'ble Sudhanshu Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned
counsel for respondent no.1-Union of India
and Sri Yash Padia, learned counsel for
respondents no.2 & 3.

2. The petitioner by means of the
present writ petition has assailed the order
dated 20.09.2025 passed by respondent no.3Head of the Territory Office/Territory
Manager (Retail), Mathura, whereby he has
placed the petitioner in Category-3 in respect
to the categories of land defined in para 4 (vi)
of the 'Brochure of Selection of Dealers for
Regular and Retail Outlets' (hereinafter
referred to as 'Brochure of Selection').

3. The respondent-Corporation has
issued an advertisement on 28.06.2023
inviting applications for establishment of
retail outlet in Village-Salempur Karhal
Kishni
Road,
Tehsil-Karhal,
District
Mainpuri.

4. The petitioner being eligible for
getting
retail
outlet,
submitted
an
application
pursuant
to
aforesaid
advertisement dated 28.06.2023. According
to the petitioner, he fell in the category of
Group-1 of the land categorized in Para-4
(vi) of the Brochure of Selection, therefore,
he mentioned Category-1 of the land
defined in Para-4 (vi) of the Brochure of
Selection in the application.

5. The petitioner claims that he has
been
provisionally
selected
by
the
respondent Corporation by order dated
07.02.2025.
The
petitioner
thereafter
submitted lease deed in respect to the land
offered by him for establishing the retail
outlet. According to the petitioner, lease
deed of the petitioner dated 04.09.2023
complies with all the requirements of land
falling in Category-1 inasmuch as the
petitioner has suitable piece of land in the
advertised location by way of long term
lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11
months, which is evident from the lease
deed of the petitioner.

6. On the aforesaid facts, the petitioner
alleges that he has been wrongly placed in
Category-3 of the land categorised in Para4 (vi) of the Brochure of Selection.

7. Sri Padia, learned counsel for
respondents no.2 & 3 on instructions states
that pursuant to the advertisement, draw of
lots for selection of candidate for retail
outlet took place firstly on 16.12.2023 in
which a candidate was selected, but his
credentials
were
not
found
proper,
therefore, his candidature was rejected. He
168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
further states that draw of lot second time
took place on 19.06.2024 in which again a
candidate was selected, but since his
credentials
were
not
found
correct,
therefore, candidature of the said selected
candidate was also rejected. Lastly, a draw
of lot for selection of candidate for retail
outlet took place on 07.02.2025 in which
petitioner was provisionally selected, and a
provisional selection letter was issued to
the petitioner with the condition that if the
petitioner satisfies the conditions embodied
in the said letter, only then the final
allotment shall be offered to him.

8. The facts which has been stated by
the learned counsel for the respondents
have not been disputed by the learned
counsel for the petitioner.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
does not dispute the fact that on earlier two
occasions i.e. 16.12.2023 and 19.06.2024,
draw of lot took place for selection of
candidate, but petitioner was not selected
and retail outlet was not offered to him.

10. At this juncture, it is also
important to note that after hearing the
learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the Corporation, this
Court was of the view that no prima facie
case for grant of interim order has been
made out, and petitioner could make out a
case
for
inviting
counter
affidavit,
therefore, the Court was inclined to call for
a counter affidavit, but the learned counsel
for the petitioner insisted for disposal of the
writ petition, therefore, the Court is
proceeding to dispose off the writ petition
on the facts which have been stated by the
learned counsel for Corporation as noted
above and these facts have not been
disputed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.

11. Challenging the said order, learned
counsel for the petitioner has urged that
respondent no.3 has wrongly interpreted
Clause-10 of the lease deed inasmuch as
Clause-10 of the lease deed which has been
relied upon by the Corporation does not
prejudice the Corporation in any manner
nor hampers the establishment of retail
outlet, inasmuch as the said condition
stipulates that only in case the retail outlet
is not allotted to the petitioner, the lease
deed would stand cancelled. It is submitted
that in the instant case, provisional
allotment letter has been issued to the
petitioner, therefore, Clause-10 of the lease
deed is not attracted as the petitioner had
been selected for establishment of retail
outlet. Therefore, the impugned order
placing the petitioner in Category-3 in
place of Category-1 is illegal, erroneous
and based on misinterpretation of Clause10 of the lease deed.

12. He further submits that while
interpreting the lease deed, there should be
harmonious construction of the stipulation
contained in the lease deed so as to achieve
the real object of the document i.e. lease
deed, and thus, the impugned order cannot
be sustained in law. In this regard, learned
counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance upon a judgement of the Patna
High Court reported in AIR 2020 Patna
127 Shankar Kumar Bhagat Vs. the
Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents would contend that in the
instant case, there is no illegality in the
impugned order inasmuch as it is not
disputed that on earlier two occasions
i.e.16.12.2023 and 19.06.2024 when the
first and second draw of lots took place, the
petitioner was not selected. If the condition
no.10 is read in the light of the aforesaid
11 All. Sone Lal Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
169
fact, it is evident that once the petitioner
was not selected in the first and second
draw of lots held on 16.12.2023 and
19.06.2024, the condition no.10 of the lease
deed gets attracted and the lease deed
automatically stood cancelled till it is
ratified by the lessor that he will not take
any action for eviction of the petitioner
from the lease property on the basis of
condition
no.10.
Accordingly,
it
is
submitted that there is no illegality in the
impugned order.

14. We have heard learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.

15. Brochure of Selection annexed at
page-35
(Annexure-4)
defines
the
eligibility criteria for individual applicantsproprietorship/partnership. Para-4 (vi) of
the Brochure of Selection prescribes
category
of
land
(applicable
to
all
categories). For convenience, Para-4 (vi) of
the Brochure of Selection is reproduced
herein-below:-

"(vi) Land (Applicable to all
categories):

The
applicants
would
be
classified into three groups as mentioned
below based on the land offered or land
not offered by them in the application
form:-

Group-1:
Applicants
having
suitable piece of land in the advertised
location/area
either
by
way
of
ownership/long term lease for a period of
minimum 19 years 11 months or as
advertised by the OMC.

Group-2: Applicants having Firm
Offer for a suitable piece of land for
purchase or long-term lease for a period of
minimum 19 years 11 months or as
advertised by the OMC.

Group-3: Applicants who have
not offered land in the application. Only
applicable for locations advertised under
SC/ST category.

Applications
under
Group-3
would be processed/advised to offer land
(Annexure - D) only in case no eligible
applicant is found or no applicant get
selected under Group -1 & Group-2"

16. Perusal of Para-4 (vi) of the
Brochure
of
Selection
is
clear
and
unambiguous and categorise the land for
establishment of retail outlet in 03
Categories. Petitioner claims that he falls in
Category-1.

17. Perusal of Category-1 indicates
that the applicant should have suitable
piece of land in the advertised location/area
either by way of ownership/long term lease
for a period of minimum 19 years 11
months or as advertised by the OMC. In the
instant case, it is not disputed that the
respondent
Corporation
had
put
the
petitioner in Category-1 when the first
draw of lots was drawn on 16.12.2023.
Even at the time of second draw of lots and
third draw of lots, the respondents had put
the petitioner in Category-1.

18. So far as at the time of first draw
of lots is concerned, the petitioner was
eligible and fell in Category-1 of the
category of land described in para-4 (vi) .

19. It is only after the provisional
selection of the petitioner, the further
formalities are required to be done for
issuance of the final allotment letter, and as
per the provisional selection letter of the
170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner, the petitioner has to comply with
the
requirements
embodied
in
the
provisional selection letter. One of the
condition embodied in the provisional
selection letter is that the petitioner is to
furnish documents of ownership and only
at this stage, respondent-corporation asked
for ownership document to verify the
nature of ownership of the petitioner in
respect to land which he has offered for
establishment of retail outlet.

20. It is pertinent to point out that the
document of title of the candidate was not
before the respondent Corporation at the
time of draw of lot. If the documents of
title were before the Corporation, and the
process
of
selection
provides
the
scrutinising of documents of title before
draw of lot for selection of candidate, the
petitioner would not have been considered
in Category-1 at the time of draw of lot
held second time and third time on
07.02.2025 for selection of the candidate as
he was not selected in the first draw of lot
and some other candidate was selected.
Since, the petitioner was not selected in the
first draw of lot, the condition no.10 of the
lease deed gets attracted after the draw of
first lot.

21. Clause-10 of the lease deed is
reproduced herein below:-

"10. यह मक यमद पेरोलपम्प स्वीकृत नही होता है ।
तो यह लीजर्ीर् स्वतः ही मनरस्त मानी जायेगी।"

22. Perusal of Clause-10 of the lease
deed is unambiguous and clear and states in
specific term that in case, the petrol pump
is not allotted to the petitioner, the lease
deed would stand automatically terminated.
If the condition no.10 of the lease deed is
read in the light of the fact that the
petitioner was not selected in the first draw
of lot held on 16.12.2023, it is clear that the
Clause-10 of the lease deed is attracted, and
enables the lessor to invoke the said clause
to get the petitioner evicted by adopting
due process of law.

23. Sri Padia, learned counsel for the
respondents has also informed the Court
that it is the company funded outlet under
Scheme Corpus Fund (SCF). It is obvious
that no prudent man would make huge
investment over a land, the title of which is
under cloud or even disputed by fraction as
in the instant case. If the lessor adopts legal
procedure for a decree for eviction in view
of Clause10 of the lease deed, the chances
of success of lessor in getting the eviction
decree is bright, and huge investment of the
Company would go in vain, and the
company would suffer substantial loss.

24. In such view of the fact, we find
that the reasons given by the respondent
no.3 in placing the petitioner in Category-3
by placing reliance on condition no.10 of
the lease deed does not suffer from any
error and illegality.

25. So far as the judgement relied
upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in the case of Shankar Kumar
Bhagat (supra) is concerned, the said
judgement is of no help to the petitioner,
inasmuch as in the said case, the
candidature of the petitioner was rejected
on the ground that the land documents
submitted by him were not found valid for
considering the offered land under Group-1
and his candidature had been found
ineligible. In the said case, the petitioner
got a lease deed executed on 18.12.2018,
and he in order to rule out any ambiguity in
the text and recital of lease deed dated
18.12.2018 got executed, a rectification
lease deed dated 19.03.2019 by which it
11 All. Nizamuddin @ Bhindi Vs. State of U.P.
171
was clarified that the lease deed executed
and registered on 18.12.2018 is valid for a
period of 29 years with effect from the date
of
execution
and
registration
i.e.
18.12.2018. The ground on which the land
document was rejected was that it did not
meet the requirement in terms of Clause 4
(v) (a) of the brochure which provides that
the land should be available with the
applicant as on the date of application and
should have minimum lease of 19 years and
11 months from the date or after the date of
advertisement but not later than the date of
application, whereas the lease deed dated
18.l2.2018 submitted by the petitioner
under the head description of the leased
land in Mauza Rampur mentioned that the
period of lease will be valid for 29 years
after getting the licence from I.O.C.

26. The said objection was repelled by
the Patna High Court and it held that the
Oil Company has erred in construing the
registered instrument dated 18.12.2018
inasmuch as it has filed to look into the
complete contents of the lease deed which
clearly provides that the lease deed had
been made from the same date for a period
of 29 years on the annual rent of
Rs.95,000/- and the lessee has taken over
the possession of the land.

27. In the instant case, there is no such
rectification deed as was in the case of
Shankar Kumar Bhagat (supra) relied
upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. In the instant case, Clause-10 of
the lease deed which has been relied upon
by the Oil Company is unambiguous and
clearly stipulates that in the event, the
petrol pump is not allotted, the lease deed
would
stand
cancelled
automatically,
therefore, the law enunciated in the
judgement of Shankar Kumar Bhagat
(supra) does not come to rescue the
petitioner.

28. Thus, for the reasons given above,
the writ petition lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed with no order as to
costs.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 171
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2105 of 1986

Nizamuddin @ Bhindi ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:

Counsel for the Respondents:

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to benefit of doubt.

Headnotes
Benefit of doubt; Indian penal Code,
1860-sec 307-Appellant convicted u/s 307,
Indian Penal Code - seven years rigorous
imprisonment-allegation that appellant came
and fired upon PW-2 from behind -fire shot hit
on his back -appellant fled away from the spotmaterial contradiction between the statement of
PW-2 (injured)- material contradiction between
genesis of prosecution case- prosecution has
not proved its case beyond reasonable doubtcontrary - against the weight of evidenceentitled to the benefit of doubt-order of
conviction and sentence recorded is set asideAppeal allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh & Ors.,
(2017) 11 SCC 195