# Sri Krishna & Anr v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 661
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-03
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 28104 of 2024
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta, Anish Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-krishna-anr-v-u-o-i-ors-53190
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 226, - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 198,
198(4), 198(5), 198(6) & 333 - Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 11 &
19:- Writ Petition - Direction sought for release
of compensation pursuant to land acquisition -
Agricultural land originally allotted to petitioners
on lease (Patta) in 2003 - Mutation duly
recorded in revenue records - complaint
received in 2009, alleging irregularities in the
allotment of Patta - proceeding initiated u/s
198(4) of Act, 1950 - lease cancelled by the
Collector in 2015 - Revision, allowed on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction in 2016 -
Cancellation set aside - Proceedings attained
finality - subsequently, the land was acquired
by the government
- compensation was
awarded in 2023 - Authorities denied to paid
compensation, on the ground that, a fresh
proceedings were initiated by the SDM to cancel
the leases - whether the order of SDM after
declaration of Award, petitioners can be denied
for compensation for the acquired land - court
finds
that,
cancellation
proceedings
were
reopened on the basis of a report received in
2023, - Notices were issued in 2024, nearly
after lapse of 21 years, - Proceedings initiated
u/s 198(4) of the Act, 1950 held to be ex facie
barred by limitation - such action amounts to
legal overreach - Further, the U.P. Z.A.L.R. Act,
1950 stands repealed by the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 and as per Section 128 of the Code,
limitation for cancellation of allotment or lease is
5 years - Thus, the proceedings were beyond
the prescribed period and without jurisdiction -
held - the fresh proceeding for cancellation of
allotments was beyond the limitation and lack of
jurisdiction therefore same is quashed - writ
petition, allowed with directions, to pay the
compensation to the petitioners in terms of
Award, within four weeks, with a cost of Rs.
25000/- each Patta, direction issued accordingly.
(Para - 11, 18, 21, 23, 24)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

## Text

4 All. Sri Krishna & Anr. Vs. U.O.I & Ors.
661
explicitly states its applicability to specific
projects undertaken by PGCIL. Moreover,
ambiguity remains as to whether the policy
extends to the farmers who have already
received compensation from PGCIL but are
dissatisfied with the amount paid to them.

23. At the outset, this Court deems it
necessary to clarify that matters involving
policy decisions fall within the exclusive
domain of the executive, and judicial
interference in such matters is warranted
only in cases of manifest arbitrariness,
unreasonableness,
or
violation
of
fundamental rights. The Writ Court cannot
substitute its wisdom with the policy
making authorities unless it suffers from
conditional infirmity. In view of the above,
the present writ petition, which primarily seeks
judicial intervention in a policy matter, does
not warrant the Court's indulgence at this
stage.

24. In the present case, the compensation
granted earlier by PGCIL was based on a
report of Conservator of Forests, Moradabad
as stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the
respondents. However, no supporting record
has been annexed. Furthermore, before
disbursing the compensation, no formal award
was passed by the District Judge for the same.

25. Accordingly, this Court concludes
that the earlier compensation granted by
PGCIL in absence of an award, was merely a
suo moto payment made by the PGCIL, that is,
Telegraph Authority under Section 10 (d) of
the Telegraph Act and not under Section 18
(2) of the Telegraph Act, which requires an
award to be passed following a diligent
application by the Telegraph Authority.

26. Thus, the contention of the petitioner
that the earlier compensation was granted
under Section 18 (2) of the Telegraph Act is
categorically rebuffed by this Court, as no
award was passed by the Magistrate.
Consequently, the only remedy available to
the petitioners, for their grievances in case they
are aggrieved by the compensation or want to
aggrandize the same which has been granted
earlier by the Telegraph Authority, is to
approach the District Judge under Section 16
(3) of the Telegraph Act by filing an
appropriate application.

27. The Apex Court also affirmed in
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
(supra) that it is the District Judge, and not the
District Magistrate, who has jurisdiction under
Section 16 (3) of the Telegraph Act, to
determine issues relating to adequacy and
sufficiency of compensation.

28. Accordingly, the present writ petition
is disposed of on the ground of an alternative
remedy available under Section 16 (3) of the
Telegraph Act. The petitioners are relegated to
approach the District Judge for redressal of
their grievances.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 661
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ C No. 28104 of 2024
With
Writ C No. 33280 of 2024
With
Writ C No. 33439 of 2024

Sri Krishna & Anr. ....Petitioners
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Suresh Singh
662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Sri Subodh Kumar

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 226, - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 198,
198(4), 198(5), 198(6) & 333 - Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 11 &
19:- Writ Petition - Direction sought for release
of compensation pursuant to land acquisition -
Agricultural land originally allotted to petitioners
on lease (Patta) in 2003 - Mutation duly
recorded in revenue records - complaint
received in 2009, alleging irregularities in the
allotment of Patta - proceeding initiated u/s
198(4) of Act, 1950 - lease cancelled by the
Collector in 2015 - Revision, allowed on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction in 2016 -
Cancellation set aside - Proceedings attained
finality - subsequently, the land was acquired
by the government
- compensation was
awarded in 2023 - Authorities denied to paid
compensation, on the ground that, a fresh
proceedings were initiated by the SDM to cancel
the leases - whether the order of SDM after
declaration of Award, petitioners can be denied
for compensation for the acquired land - court
finds
that,
cancellation
proceedings
were
reopened on the basis of a report received in
2023, - Notices were issued in 2024, nearly
after lapse of 21 years, - Proceedings initiated
u/s 198(4) of the Act, 1950 held to be ex facie
barred by limitation - such action amounts to
legal overreach - Further, the U.P. Z.A.L.R. Act,
1950 stands repealed by the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 and as per Section 128 of the Code,
limitation for cancellation of allotment or lease is
5 years - Thus, the proceedings were beyond
the prescribed period and without jurisdiction -
held - the fresh proceeding for cancellation of
allotments was beyond the limitation and lack of
jurisdiction therefore same is quashed - writ
petition, allowed with directions, to pay the
compensation to the petitioners in terms of
Award, within four weeks, with a cost of Rs.
25000/- each Patta, direction issued accordingly.
(Para - 11, 18, 21, 23, 24)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

1. Suresh Giri & ors.Vs Board of Revenue &
ors.- 2010 vol. 2 ADJ 514,

2.
Ramker
Chauhan
Vs
Commissioner,
Azamgarh & ors.- 2012 vol. 8 ADJ 713,

3. Rishi Pal & ors.Vs St. of U.P. & ors.- 2018
vol. 7 ADJ 391,

4. Smt. Shakuntala & ors.Vs St. of U.P. & ors.-
2019 vol. 5 ADJ 871,

5. Joint Commissioner Ranga Reddy District &
anr.Vs D Narsing Rao & ors.- 2015 vol. 3 SCC
695
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar
Gupta, J.
&
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)

1. The present batch of petitions
involves similar facts and legal issues, as
well as the relief sought, and therefore they
have been heard together and are being
decided by a common order and judgment.

2. The prayer made in all the
petitions is for issuance of writ of
mandamus, commanding the respondents to
release compensation amount for the
acquired lands belonging to the petitioners
in pursuance of the land acquisition
proceedings conducted by the respondents.

3. It is admitted by the parties that
the petitioners were granted agricultural
lease
of
different
parcels
of
land
admeasuring
0.2000/0.3000
hectare,
situated in Village Maniyapur, Pargana and
Tehsil Narwal, District Kanpur Nagar, on
31.3.2003, after obtaining approval from
the competent authority as per the law
prevailing at the relevant time. Based on
the same, the names of the petitioners were
mutated in the revenue records. On
4 All. Sri Krishna & Anr. Vs. U.O.I & Ors.
663
16.9.2009, a complaint was made by one
Ram Khilawan, alleging irregularities in
the allotment proceedings. It was registered
as Case No. 18 of 2009-2010, under
Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for
short 'UPZALR Act') in the court of
Collector, Kanpur Nagar. In the said
proceedings, vide order of Collector dated
29.6.2015, the allotment dated 31.3.2003
was
cancelled,
holding
that
various
irregularities were committed in granting
the patta. The order of Collector dated
29.6.2015 was challenged by the allottees
in Revision No. 134 of 2015, filed under
Section 333 of UPZALR Act, read with the
provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act. The
revision
was
allowed
by
Additional
Commissioner by order dated 26.10.2016,
holding that the power to cancel the leases
was not with the Collector, but with the
Assistant Collector of the Sub Division
Incharge. The order dated 26.10.2016
allowing the revision was not challenged
by any party and thus it became final.

4. On 11.04.2022, the respondents
issued a notification under Section 11 of
the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
It was followed by notification under
Section 19 dated 20.12.2022, and award
dated 2.3.2023. Before declaring the award,
notices were issued to the petitioners on
28.2.2023, intimating them that award
would be declared on 2.3.2023 and they
were
required
to
submit
necessary
documents (a notary affidavit, along with
passport size photograph, a revenue ticket,
bank passbook, PAN Card, Aadhar Card,
certified copy of khatauni and share
certificate from Tehsildar) to facilitate the
release of compensation amount in their
favour.
5. Recently, on 6.3.2024, the
respondents issued notices to the petitioners
and other allottees, stating that a report
dated 23.03.2023 has been submitted by
Tehsildar for re-initiating proceedings for
cancellation
of
allotments
dated
31.03.2003. The petitioners were required
to submit their reply by the next date, i.e.
18.3.2024,
failing
which,
proceedings
would be held ex-parte.

6. The case of the petitioners is that
they
have
submitted
the
required
documents for release of compensation in
terms of award dated 02.03.2023, but they
have not been paid compensation and
therefore, the present batch of petitions has
been filed seeking a direction to the said
effect.

7. A counter affidavit has been
filed by Naib Tehsildar, Narwal, District
Kanpur Nagar, on behalf of respondent no.
5,
i.e
Competent
Authority
(Land
Acquisition)/Additional District Magistrate,
Kanpur Nagar, wherein it is not disputed
that the petitioners were granted separate
agricultural leases in pursuance of approval
order dated 31.3.2003 and that the same are
covered under the acquisition notifications
issued under Act No. 30 of 2013 and award
dated 2.3.2023. It has also not been
disputed that the petitioners were issued
separate notices by respondent no. 5 to
appear before him and submit documents to
facilitate release of compensation amount
in terms of the award. However, the
respondents have taken the stand that at the
stage of payment of compensation, it came
to their knowledge that the leases in favour
of the petitioners were not valid and that
the Additional Commissioner allowed the
revision filed by the allottees upon a
finding that the authority competent to
cancel the leases was Sub Divisional
664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Magistrate and not District Magistrate.
Accordingly, the Sub Divisional Magistrate
has
registered
Case
No.
T201603410408882 (State of U.P. vs.
Ashok Kumar and Others) under Section
198(4) of UPZALR Act, for cancelling the
agricultural leases granted to the petitioners
on 31.3.2003. The said proceedings were
stated to be pending and on basis of these
facts, it has been prayed that the writ
petitions be dismissed.

8. Another affidavit has been filed
by Additional District Magistrate/Special
Land Acquisition Officer, Kanpur Nagar in
compliance of order dated 19.12.2024. The
stand taken therein in respect of the
allotment of agricultural leases in favour of
the petitioners vide order dated 31.3.2003
and the proceedings held for cancellation of
the agricultural leases vide Case No. 18 of
2009-2010 is the same as pleaded by the
petitioners. It is also admitted that the
subject land was acquired vide notifications
dated 11.4.2022 and 20.12.2022 under the
provisions of Act No. 30 of 2013 for
establishment of a defence corridor. It is
further admitted that in the past, the leases
were cancelled by the Collector vide order
dated 29.6.2015 and the said order was set
aside by the Additional Commissioner by
order dated 26.10.2016 on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction with the District
Magistrate. It is stated that since the
findings on merits recorded by the District
Magistrate in relation to irregularities in
allotment proceedings were not set aside
while allowing the revision, therefore, the
court
of
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate/Assistant Collector 1st, Tehsil
Narwal, District Kanpur Nagar has reopened the proceedings for cancellation of
leases. It is stated that in the said
proceedings, notices were issued to the
petitioners and they were duly served.
Except one Ashok Kumar, others did not
appear
and
therefore,
after
hearing
arguments on his behalf, the Sub Divisional
Magistrate
passed a
final order
on
18.12.2024,
cancelling
the
order
of
approval of leases dated 31.3.2003. It is
stated that in view of the said order, the
petitioners
are
not
entitled
to
any
compensation.

9.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners, on the other hand, submitted
that the entire proceedings for cancellation
of leases is mala fide and also without
jurisdiction inasmuch as even show-cause
notice
for
initiation
of
cancellation
proceedings could not have been issued
after lapse of five years from the date of
allotment in view of Section 198(6) of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. It is submitted that
even the earlier proceeding initiated on the
complaint of one Ram Khelawan on
16.09.2009, though stood terminated in
favour of the petitioners, was barred by
limitation. It is submitted that objection in
this regard was duly taken by Ashok
Kumar and the said fact is also noted in the
order, but the same has not been
considered. It is further submitted that it is
settled law that the State does not acquire
its own land and once the subject lands
were notified for acquisition treating the
same as belonging to private persons, it is
too late in the day to allege that the patta
granted in favour of the petitioners was
irregular or illegal. As a necessary
corollary, the proceedings under Section
198(4) initiated by SDM with issuance of
show cause notice in month of March 2024
and the order dated 18.12.2024 are totally
illegal and without jurisdiction.

10. It is evident from perusal of the
record and submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties that there is no
4 All. Sri Krishna & Anr. Vs. U.O.I & Ors.
665
dispute between the parties that agricultural
leases were granted in favour of the
petitioners and other (total 176 persons)
measuring 0.2000/0.3000 hectares on basis
of the resolution of the Land Management
Committee, duly approved by SDM on
31.03.2003. Giving effect to the same,
names of the petitioners were mutated in
the revenue records. The recent khatauni
evidences
that
the
petitioners
were
conferred the status of bhumidhar with non
transferable rights.

11. The sole issue for consideration
is whether in view of order dated
18.12.2024
passed
by
SDM
after
declaration of the award, the petitioners can
be denied compensation for the acquired
lands. In pith and substance, the plea of the
State is that the patta in favour of the
petitioners was illegal and the same having
been
cancelled
vide
order
dated
18.12.2024, the land stood vested in the
State and therefore, notwithstanding the
award dated 02.03.2023, the petitioners are
not entitled to any compensation. As the
plea has been set up to deny compensation
to the petitioners and that too on basis of
order passed during pendency of the writ
petition and in opposition to the said plea, it
is contended that the entire proceedings are
without jurisdiction, therefore, in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the
instant case, we proceed to examine the
same to the extent it is based on the
admitted facts.

12. The power to cancel allotment
is hedged with checks and balances.
Thus, while sub-section (4) of Section
198 of UPZALR Act confers power in
favour of the Collector to enquire as to
whether allotment has been made in the
manner prescribed, suo moto or on an
application of any person aggrieved, subsection (5) stipulates that no order for
cancellation of allotment or lease shall be
made unless a notice to show cause is
given to the allottee or his legal
representative. There is a further restraint
by way of limitation within which show
cause notice could be issued, which in the
instant case where the patta is dated
31.03.2003, was five years from the date
of allotment i.e., upto 31.03.2008. Subsections (4), (5) and (6) of Section 198
which are relevant, are as follows:

 "(4) The *[Assistant Collector
in-charge of the sub-division] may of his
own motion and shall on the application
of any person aggrieved by an allotment
of land inquire in the manner prescribed
into such allotment and if he is satisfied
that the allotment is irregular, he may
cancel the allotment and the lease, if any.

 **[(4-A) The Collector may on
his own motion or on the application of
any aggrieved person call for the record
of any suit or proceeding under subsection (4) decided by the Assistant
Collector in-charge of the sub-division
for the purpose of satisfying himself as to
the legality of propriety of any order
passed in such suit or proceedings and if
such Assistant Collector in-charge of the
sub-division appears to have -

 (i) exercised a jurisdiction not
vested in it by law; or
 (ii)
failed
to
exercise
a
jurisdiction so vested; or
 (iii) acted in the exercise of
jurisdiction illegally or with material
irregularity;
 the Collector may pass such order
in the case as he thinks fit and every order
passed by the Collector under this subsection shall be final;]
666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 (5) No order for cancellation of
an allotment or lease shall be made under
sub-section (4), unless a notice to show
cause is served on the person in whose
favour the allotment or lease was made or
on his legal representatives :
 Provided that no such notice shall
be necessary in proceedings for the
cancellation of any allotment or lease
where such proceedings were pending
before the Collector or any other Court or
authority on August 18, 1980.
 (6) Every notice to show cause
mentioned in sub-section (5) may be issued
-
 (a) in the case of an allotment of
land made before November 10, 1980,
(hereinafter referred to as the said date),
before the expiry of a period of [seven
years] from the said date; and
 (b) in the case of an allotment of
land made on or after the said date, before
the expiry of a period of [five years from
the date of such allotment or lease or up to
November 10, 1987, which ever be later]."

13. These provisions have been
interpreted time and again by this court in
various judgements and it has been held
consistently that show cause notice for
cancellation, whether suo moto or on
application of any person aggrieved, has to
be issued within stipulated period or else,
the same would be barred by limitation. It
would be advantageous to refer to some of
the judgements on the point.

14. In Suresh Giri and Others vs.
Board of Revenue and Others, 2010 (2)
ADJ 514, it has been held as follows:

 "(10) The time in which the
notice for cancellation of allotment of
land/lease can be issued by the authority
concerned is provided in Section 198(6) of
the Act which lays down that in cases
where allotment is made before 10th
November, 1980 notice may be issued
within a period of seven years of said date
and in cases where allotment is made on or
after 10th November, 1980 before the
expiry of five years from such allotment or
up to 10th November, 1987 whichever be
later. In short, the limitation for issuing a
show cause notice is five years from the
allotment where it is made on or after 10th
November, 1980.

 (11) The provisions of subsection (4), (5) and (6) of Section 198 of
the Act are to be construed in conjunction
with one another and cannot be read inisolation. The aforesaid provisions are
unambiguous and the language used therein
is plain and simple which makes no
distinction
between
proceedings
for
cancellation of allotment initiated suo motu
or on the application of a person aggrieved.
Therefore, they have to be construed in the
ordinary sense and in no other way. SubSection (4) of Section 198 of the Act
provides for cancellation of allotment/lease
by the Collector on his own motion as well
as on the application of the person
aggrieved.
In
both
the
cases,
allotment/lease can not be cancelled
without affording an opportunity of hearing
to the allottee or the person concerned, as
otherwise the action of cancellation would
be termed arbitrary and violative of
principles of natural justice. Sub-section (6)
of Section 198 of the Act follows Section
198(4) of the Act which as such covers
both
the
types
of
proceedings
for
cancellation viz. suo motu as well as on
application
of
person
aggrieved.
(12) Accordingly, in my opinion, the
inevitable conclusion is that the time frame
prescribed
for
issuing
notice
before
cancelling the allotment/lease of a land
4 All. Sri Krishna & Anr. Vs. U.O.I & Ors.
667
provided under sub-section (6) of Section
198 of the Act is applicable to both suo
motu proceedings as well as proceedings
on the application of the person aggrieved."

15. In Ramker Chauhan vs.
Commissioner, Azamgarh and others,
2012 (8) ADJ 713, where, in order to defeat
the bar of limitation, it was contended that
the same would apply only to cases of
irregular allotment and not to cases of
illegal allotment, the plea was repelled,
observing as follows:

 "The
power
to
initiate
proceedings for cancellation of the land is
provided under Section 198(4) of the Act.
As per this Section, the Collector on his
own motion or on an application of any
person aggrieved by an allotment of land,
may cancel the said allotment if he is
satisfied that the same is irregular. Sub
section (5) of Section 198 provides that no
order for cancellation of an allotment or
lease shall be made under sub-section (4),
unless a notice to show cause is served on
the person in whose favour the allotment or
lease
was
made
or
on
his
legal
representatives. Clause (b) of Section 198
(6) provides that every notice to show
cause mentioned in sub-section (5) may be
issued in the case of an allotment of land
made on or after November 10, 1980,
before the expiry of a period of five years
from the date of such allotment or lease or
up to November 10, 1987, which ever be
later. Thus, it nowhere emerges from sub
section (6) of Section 198 that any
exception is provided in respect of
allotments which have been made in
violation of the statute. The very nature of
the power exercised by the Collector under
Section 198(4) is to seek cancellation of
those allotment which have either been
obtained irregularly or illegallly. No
proceeding can be initiated beyond the
period of limitation as provided under the
statute irrespective of the fact whether the
said allotment is irregular or illegal."

16. The same view has been taken
by this court in Rishi Pal and Others vs.
State of U.P. and Others, 2018 (7) ADJ
391 and Smt. Shakuntla and Others vs.
State of U.P. and Others, 2019 (5) ADJ
871.

17. In the present case, as noted
above, it is undisputed that the leases were
approved by SDM on 31.03.2003 who, at
the relevant time, was the competent
authority to grant the approval. On
16.09.2009, the complaint filed by Ram
Khelawan was registered under Section
198(4) of UPZA & LR Act as Case
No.18/2009-10. The said proceeding was
initiated after lapse of more than five years
and
apparently
barred
by
limitation.
Additionally, as already noted, the said
proceeding culminated in favour of the
allottees,
consequent
upon,
Revision
No.134/2015 having been allowed by
Additional Commissioner vide order dated
28.10.2016. The revisional court has
simply set aside the order of the Collector
dated 29.06.2015 on ground of lack of
jurisdiction. The effect of the said order is
that it was open to the appropriate
competent authority i.e., SDM to re-draw
proceedings for cancellation. In fact, as
noted above, even that was impermissible
as the initial complaint itself, made on
16.09.2009, was beyond the limitation
prescribed for issuing show cause notice.

18. It is evident from the order
dated 28.12.2024 that the cancellation
proceeding were re-opened on basis of a
report submitted by Revenue Authorities on
23.03.2023. The SDM issued notice to the
668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
allottees on 06.03.2024 i.e., almost after
lapse of twenty one years from the date of
allotment
i.e.,
31.03.2003
fixing
18.03.2024 for filing written statement.
Before that the subject land was notified for
acquisition treating the same as belonging
to the petitioners. An award for the same
was duly made. The proceedings initiated
on basis of notice issued on 06.03.2024 are
ex facie barred by limitation and constitute
an over-reach.

19. Here, we may notice an
interesting feature of the case. It is clear
that the authorities were also conscious of
the fact that the limitation had expired.
Therefore, instead of initiating fresh
proceedings for cancellation, they invented
a novel method to defeat the bar of
limitation. Thus, Case No. 18/2009-2010,
which stood consigned as a result of
revision of the allottees having been
allowed vide order dated 26.10.2016, was
allocated a new computer number, i.e.
T20160341040882 and in the same case
notice to file written statement was issued
fixing 18.02.2024.

20. It is well settled that what
cannot be done directly also cannot be done
indirectly. Undoubtedly, the proceedings
now initiated were not continuation of the
complaint of private person but an exercise
of suo moto power. Even, in cases of fraud,
where delay in initiation of proceedings is
generally not fatal, the Supreme Court in
Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District
and another vs. D. Narsing Rao and
others, (2015) 3 SCC 695 held as under:

 "25. The legal position is fairly
well-settled by a long line of decisions of
this Court which have laid down that even
when there is no period of limitation
prescribed for the exercise of any power,
revisional or otherwise, such power must
be exercised within a reasonable period.
This is so even in cases where allegations
of fraud have necessitated the exercise of
any corrective power. We may briefly refer
to some of the decisions only to bring home
the point that the absence of a stipulated
period of limitation makes little or no
difference in so far as the exercise of the
power is concerned which ought to be
permissible only when the power is
invoked within a reasonable period.

 31. To sum up, delayed exercise
of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon
because if actions or transactions were to
remain forever open to challenge, it will
mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in
human affairs, which is not the policy of
law. Because, even when there is no period
of limitation prescribed for exercise of such
powers, the intervening delay, may have
led to creation of third party rights, that
cannot be trampled by a belated exercise of
a discretionary power especially when no
cogent explanation for the delay is in sight.
Rule of law it is said must run closely with
the rule of life. Even in cases where the
orders sought to be revised are fraudulent,
the exercise of power must be within a
reasonable period of the discovery of fraud.
Simply describing an act or transaction to
be fraudulent will not extend the time for
its correction to infinity; for otherwise the
exercise of revisional power would itself be
tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that
vests such power in an authority.

 32. In the case at hand, while the
entry sought to be corrected is described as
fraudulent, there is nothing in the notice
impugned before the High Court as to when
was the alleged fraud discovered by the
State. A specific statement in that regard
was essential for it was a jurisdictional fact,
4 All. Sri Krishna & Anr. Vs. U.O.I & Ors.
669
which ought to be clearly asserted in the
notice issued to the respondents. The
attempt
of
the
appellant-State
to
demonstrate that the notice was issued
within a reasonable period of the
discovery of the alleged fraud is,
therefore, futile. At any rate, when the
Government allowed the land in question
for
housing
sites to
be
given
to
Government employees in the year 1991,
it must be presumed to have known about
the record and the revenue entries
concerning the parcel of land made in the
ordinary course of official business. In as
much as, the notice was issued as late as
on 31st December, 2004, it was delayed
by nearly 13 years. No explanation has
been offered even for this delay assuming
that the same ought to be counted only
from the year 1991. Judged from any
angle the notice seeking to reverse the
entries made half a century ago, was
clearly beyond reasonable time and was
rightly quashed."

21. There is one more aspect,
which though not argued, is germane to
the controversy. The UPZALR Act stands
repealed by U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
(for short 'the Code'). Section 128 of the
Code deals with cancellation of allotment
and lease. Sub-section (1) of Section 128,
which is relevant, is extracted below: -

 128. Cancellation of allotment
and lease. - (1) The Collector may, of his
own motion and shall on the application
of any person aggrieved, inquire in the
manner prescribed into any allotment and
if he is satisfied that the allotment is in
contravention of the provisions of this
Code or any of the enactments repealed
by
this
Code
or
the
rules
made
thereunder, he may cancel the allotment
and the lease, if any -
 (a) in the case of an allotment of
land made before the commencement of
this Code, within five years from the date
of such commencement;

 (b) in the case of an allotment of
land made on or after the date of such
commencement, within five years from
the date of such allotment or lease.

22. The date of commencement of
Code is 11.02.2016. Thus, even under the
Code, the limitation was five years from
the date of commencement, i.e. upto
11.02.2021, whereas the notices reopening the proceedings were issued for
the first time on 06.03.2024, much
beyond the stipulated period.

23. As we have found that even
on
basis
of
undisputed
facts,
the
proceeding for cancellation of allotments
was beyond limitation, therefore the
resultant order cancelling the lease is
illegal and nonest in the eyes of law. In
such a situation, we are of the opinion
that declining relief to the petitioners and
relegating them to other remedies to
challenge
the
order
passed
during
pendency of the writ petitions cancelling
the allotment
would be an empty
formality and only result in unnecessary
harassment
and
multiplication
of
proceedings. We, therefore, refrain from
adopting such a course and declare the
proceedings for cancellation of patta in
pursuance of notice dated 06.03.2024 to be
barred
by
time
and
thus,
without
jurisdiction. Accordingly, by way of
ancillary relief, the said order is hereby
quashed. Respondent no.5 is directed to
pay compensation to the petitioners in
terms of award dated 02.03.2023 within
eight
weeks
from
the
date
of
communication of the instant order.
670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
24. In the result, the petitions
succeed and are allowed. As the petitioners
have
been
subjected
to
unnecessary
harassment and compensation has been
withheld on a specious plea, which is
evidently afterthought and unsustainable in
law, therefore, the petitioners are held
entitled to cost and damages, quantified as
Rs. 25,000/- for each patta, to be paid by
respondent no. 5, within four weeks from
the date of communication of the instant
order.

25. A copy of the order be kept on
the file of each case.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 670
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGRNDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 31506 of 2023

Dr. Saba Sarif ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ms. Akansha Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 226 - Writ Petition - seeking a writ of
mandamus - commanding the medical college
(respondent no. 2) to release the petitioner's
original documents - petitioner submitted a
bank guarantee in compliance with a prior
court order - respondent no. 2 released the
original documents - however, court finds
that - Rs. 5,00,000/- as security taken by the
medical college under a bond was not
enforceable and also same was not in
consonance with the public policy - held,
relying on precedents from the Madhya
Pradesh and Gujarat High Courts, the Court
directed to the respondent no. 2 to refund the
security deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- along with
interest at the rate of 4% per anum from the
date
of
payment,
including
the
bank
guarantee, within four weeks - direction
issued accordingly - writ petition is disposed
of.

Writ Petition Disposed of. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

1. Ruxmaniben Deepchand Gardi Medical
College Vs Dr. Ansul Jain & ors.- Writ Appeal
No. 757 of 2020,

2. Dr. Anshul Jain Vs St. of MP & ors.- Writ
Petition No. 7982/2019,

3. Shitanshu Shekhar Manoharlal Vs St. of
Guj. - P/STA/18840/2014.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,
J.
&
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,
J.)

1. Supplementary affidavit filed
on behalf of the petitioner is taken on
record.
The
supplementary
affidavit
reveals that in pursuance of the order
dated 22.09.2023 passed by a coordinate
Bench of this Court, the petitioner has
filed the bank guarantee before the
respondent no.2.

2. Upon submission of the bank
guarantee, the respondent no.2 has
released
the
original
certificates/documents to the petitioner.

3. Counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the respondent no.2
is still to refund the security deposit of