# Talimuddin & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 568
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-29
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 20244 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/talimuddin-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53598
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Matter pertains to challenge of the order passed
by the Joint Magistrate/Sub-Divisional Officer,
expunging the name of Sahadat Hussain,
grandfather of the petitioners, from Jamman-8
where he was recorded as hereditary tenant.
Issue for consideration was whether hereditary
tenancy rights could accrue in land used for
growing water chestnut (singhara) under the
provisions of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939.

Headnotes
U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 - SS. 29 , 30 -
Hereditary tenancy rights - Land covered
7 All. Talimuddin & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
569
by water and used for growing singhara -
no hereditary tenancy right could accrue -
Under S. 30 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939,
hereditary rights shall not accrue in land
covered by water and used for the
purpose of growing singhara or other
produce - Decree declaring hereditary
tenancy in such land is void being against
the statute - Revenue Entry - Long
standing entry in Jamman-8 - Based on
void decree - liable to be expunged - Once
the declaratory decree of 1966 was found
contrary to S. 30, entry based thereon
could not be allowed to continue in
Jamman-8 -
Held: The decree dated 15.06.1966 declaring
Sahadat Hussain as a hereditary tenant was
void, as it was passed under SS. 59/61 of the
U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 in violation of S. 30,
which bars hereditary rights in land used for
growing water chestnut (singhara) - Suit was
found collusive and the decree contrary to law -
Long-standing entry in Jamman-8 based on
such void decree was rightly expunged by the
authority - No hereditary tenancy could accrue -
Petition dismissed - No order as to costs. (Paras
24 to 31) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
No specific case law cited in judgment.

List of Acts
U.P.
Tenancy
Act,
1939;
Code
of
Civil
Procedure, 1908; U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901

List of Keywords
Hereditary tenant - water chestnut (singhara) -
Jamman-8 - collusive decree - declaratory suit -
expunging entry - non-fertile land - hereditary
rights shall not accrue - Revenue entry -
Expunging name - Void decree.

Case Arising From
Order dated 17.05.2025 passed by Joint
Magistrate/Sub-Divisional
Officer,
Sadar,
Gorakhpur in Case No. 17731 of 2025 (Yogi
Kamal Nath vs. State) under S. 59 of the U.P.
Tenancy Act, 1939.

Appearances for Parties

Advs. for the Petitioners:
Sri Anup Kumar Srivastava
Advs. for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri Manish Goyal, Additional Advocate General
Dr. Rajeshwar Tripathi, Chief Standing Counsel
Sri Satya Prakash Rai, for private respondent
no. 3 (Yogi Kamal Nath)

## Text

568 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
would result in a mockery of the rule of law.
The will of the people reflected through the
legislation will be seriously infringed, if the
court remains a mute spectator.

19. The High Court of Madhya
Pradesh in the matter of Smt. Mishri Bai W/o
Late Shri Nirmal Kumar and others Vs.Shubh
Laxmi Mahila Cooperative Bank Ltd., has
observed thus :-

The secured creditor is not required
to approach again and again before the District
Magistrate or DRT for recovery of the amount,
once the order has been passed under section
14 of SARFAESI Act until unless the entire
outstanding amount is recovered, the order
remains valid, therefore, the Tehsildar has not
committed any error of law or he does not
functus officio unless the entire outstanding
amount is recovered by the bank. It is settled
law that any order passed bny the Authority,
quash- judicial authority or the Court or
Tribunal
remains
valid
unless
reviewed,
recalled, cancelled by the same authority or
court or set aside by the Higher Court/Tribunal,
thus the order passed by District Magistrate is
still valid and Respondent No.1/Bank is free to
take steps thereafter until the entire outstanding
amount is cleared.

20.
The
uncontroverted
factual
aspects in present matter depict that the
respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have devised novel,
unimaginable
and
unsustainable
modus
operandi to defeat ends of justice and fair play.
It is not only the matter of physical altercation,
but would tantamount to assault on the law and
statute. They have the audacity to overrule the
law. The growing tendency of overpowering the
law cannot be tolerated. In peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case, we are inclined to
exercise powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to protect the rule of law
and deprecate rising tendency of using criminal
force against recovery proceeding undertaken
by the financial institutions in terms of
SARFAESI Act. We do not find any prohibition
under the scheme of the SARFAESI Act that
comes in the way of District Magistrate or his
delegate to re- exercise the powers to execute
the orders passed under section 14."

4. Upon considering the issue at hand, we
are at consensus ad idem of the view taken by
the Bombay High Court, and accordingly, direct
the Additional District Magistrate to grant him
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass
a fresh order on the fresh application under
Section 14 of SARFAESI Act filed before him,
in accordance with law. The entire exercise
should be completed within a period of two
months by the respondent concerned.

5. With the above direction, the writ
petition is disposed of.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 568
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Writ C No. 20244 of 2025

Talimuddin & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anup Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to challenge of the order passed
by the Joint Magistrate/Sub-Divisional Officer,
expunging the name of Sahadat Hussain,
grandfather of the petitioners, from Jamman-8
where he was recorded as hereditary tenant.
Issue for consideration was whether hereditary
tenancy rights could accrue in land used for
growing water chestnut (singhara) under the
provisions of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939.

Headnotes
U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 - SS. 29 , 30 -
Hereditary tenancy rights - Land covered
7 All. Talimuddin & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
569
by water and used for growing singhara -
no hereditary tenancy right could accrue -
Under S. 30 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939,
hereditary rights shall not accrue in land
covered by water and used for the
purpose of growing singhara or other
produce - Decree declaring hereditary
tenancy in such land is void being against
the statute - Revenue Entry - Long
standing entry in Jamman-8 - Based on
void decree - liable to be expunged - Once
the declaratory decree of 1966 was found
contrary to S. 30, entry based thereon
could not be allowed to continue in
Jamman-8 -
Held: The decree dated 15.06.1966 declaring
Sahadat Hussain as a hereditary tenant was
void, as it was passed under SS. 59/61 of the
U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 in violation of S. 30,
which bars hereditary rights in land used for
growing water chestnut (singhara) - Suit was
found collusive and the decree contrary to law -
Long-standing entry in Jamman-8 based on
such void decree was rightly expunged by the
authority - No hereditary tenancy could accrue -
Petition dismissed - No order as to costs. (Paras
24 to 31) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
No specific case law cited in judgment.

List of Acts
U.P.
Tenancy
Act,
1939;
Code
of
Civil
Procedure, 1908; U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901

List of Keywords
Hereditary tenant - water chestnut (singhara) -
Jamman-8 - collusive decree - declaratory suit -
expunging entry - non-fertile land - hereditary
rights shall not accrue - Revenue entry -
Expunging name - Void decree.

Case Arising From
Order dated 17.05.2025 passed by Joint
Magistrate/Sub-Divisional
Officer,
Sadar,
Gorakhpur in Case No. 17731 of 2025 (Yogi
Kamal Nath vs. State) under S. 59 of the U.P.
Tenancy Act, 1939.

Appearances for Parties

Advs. for the Petitioners:
Sri Anup Kumar Srivastava
Advs. for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri Manish Goyal, Additional Advocate General
Dr. Rajeshwar Tripathi, Chief Standing Counsel
Sri Satya Prakash Rai, for private respondent
no. 3 (Yogi Kamal Nath)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan
Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anup Kumar Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Manish
Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General
along with Dr. Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned
Chief Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1
and 2 and Sri Satya Prakash Rai, learned
counsel for private respondent no. 3.

2. This writ petition has been filed
assailing the order dated 17.05.2025 passed by
Joint Magistrate/Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar,
Gorakhpur in Case No. 17731 of 2025 (Yogi
Kamal Nath vs. State).

3. Petitioners, who are 22 in number,
claim that Arazi No. 466/3 was recorded in the
name of one Smt. Harnam Kunwari widow of
Jaidev Prasad (as Zamindar) and Arazi No.
446/3/2 in Khata No. 88 was recorded in name
of Gorakhnath Mandir through its Sarvakar.
Grandfather of petitioners namely Sahadat
Hussain had purchased land bearing Arazi No.
446/3M measuring 22 decimal (3 kadi) from
Smt. Harnam Kunwari. Another registered saledeed dated 13.12.1962 was registered and
grandfather of petitioners exchanged land of
Arazi No. 446, measuring 50 decimal 7 kadi;
Arazi No. 446K, measuring 33 decimal 8 kadi;
Arazi No. 445M measuring 6 decimal 5 kadi;
Arazi No. 531 measuring 26 decimal 6 kadi,
total area 1 acre 17 decimal 6 kadi from
Gorakhnath Mandir through its Sarvakar Baba
Naumi Nath Chela Mahant Baba Varam Nath in
place of Arazi No. 68 measuring 33 decimal.

4. Sahadat Hussain fied a suit under
Section 59/61 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939
(hereinafter called as "the Act of 1939")
against Smt. Harnam Kunwari. The suit was
decreed on 15.06.1966 on the basis of
570 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
admission by defendant Harnam Kunwari.
Sahadat Hussain was held to be hereditary
tenant of plot in suit. According to petitioners,
Sahadat Hussain filed another case under
Section 59/61 of the Act of 1939 against Baba
Naumi Nath and the said suit was also decreed
on 25.06.1966. Name of grandfather of
petitioners was recorded as hereditary tenant in
Khatauni
in
Jamman-8.
According
to
petitioners, the land in dispute is non fertile and
used for growing water chestnut (singhara).

5. Petitioners claim to be in possession of
the same. On 06.08.2024, an application was
moved by private respondent no. 3, Yogi Kamal
Nath, Sarvakar of Gorakhnath Temple before
respondent no. 2 stating that Arazi No. 446/3/1
measuring 0.137 hectare mentioned in Khata
No. 88 is recorded in the name of Mahant Yogi
Aditya Nath Khewat Khata No. 1 and Arazi No.
446/3/2 measuring 0.090 hectare mentioned in
Khata No. 74 in name of Alok Kumar
Srivastava
and
name
of
grandfather
of
petitioners has been wrongly mentioned in
Jamman-8 and requested for deleting their name
and correcting the Khatauni (record of rights).

6. The application was registered as
proceedings under Section 59 of the Act of
1939. A report was called by Sub Divisional
Officer which was submitted through Tehsildar,
Sadar, Gorakhpur recommending to cancel the
name of grandfather of petitioners in Jamman-8.
On 24.10.2024, an order was passed expunging
the name from revenue records. The said order
was challenged through Writ-C No. 40941 of
2024 and co-ordinate Bench of this Court on
10.01.2025 while allowing the writ petition set
aside the order and directed respondent
authorities to initiate proper proceedings in
accordance with law and decide the same. The
order
dated
10.01.2025
is
extracted
hereasunder:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner,
Shri
Manish
Goyal,
learned
Additional Advocate General assisted by
learned Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents and perused the record.

2. This petition has been filed for the
following relief:

"I. issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the Joint
Magistrate/ UP Ziladhikari, Sadar, Gorakhpur
in Case No. 37779 of 2024 (Computerized Case
No. T202405310337779) (Yogi Kamal Nath
Versus State) under Section 59 U.P. Kastkari
Act, 1939."

3. Contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that an order under Section
59 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 has been passed
against the petitioner without even issuing
notices to the petitioner and a long standing
revenue entry in favour of the petitioner has
been expunged by an ex-parte order.

4. Learned Additional Advocate
General though opposed the writ petition but
could not demonstrate that the order was
passed after hearing the opposite party who
was recorded tenure holder.

5. Since, the order has been passed
without issuing notices to the petitioner in
violation to the principles of natural justice, no
useful purpose would be served in keeping this
petition pending.

6. In view of the above, the order
dated 24.10.2024 passed by respondent no. 2
i.e. Joint Magistrate/ UP Ziladhikari, Sadar,
Gorakhpur in Case No. 37779 of 2024, is set
aside.

7. However, liberty is provided to the
respondents to initiate proper proceedings in
accordance with law and decide the same after
providing opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners and reasonable opportunity to lead
evidence in support of their case.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition
stands allowed. "

7. Post remand, respondent no. 3 moved
an application on 13.01.2025 for deciding the
matter
afresh.
Notices
were
issued
on
21.01.2025 and report of Sub-Registrar was
called. On 23.01.2025, Sub-Registrar, Sadar,
7 All. Talimuddin & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
571
Gorakhpur submitted his report that alleged
sale-deed dated 13.12.1962 was not registered
and is not available on record. The respondent
no. 2 on the same date found that no document
was produced by petitioners in respect of
agricultural work being done over the land in
dispute, thus, proceeded to expunge the name
from Jamman-8 where the name was recorded
as hereditary tenant.

8. Petitioners challenged the order dated
23.01.2025 before this Court through Writ-C
No. 9372 of 2025 and by order dated
03.04.2025, the writ petition was allowed and
order dated 23.01.2025 was set aside by coordinate Bench and the matter was remanded
back to respondent no. 2 to decide afresh.
Further, opportunity was given to petitioners to
file their objections on or before 15.04.2025
along with evidence in support of their claim.
The order dated 03.04.2025 is extracted
hereasunder:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed
seeking following relief :-

"issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
order dated 23.1.2025 passed by the Joint
Magistrate/ UP Ziladhikari, Sadar, Gorakhpur
in
Case
No.
RST/37779/2024
T202405310337779) (Computerized Case No.
(Yogi Kamal Nath Versus State) under section
59 U.P. Kastkari Act 1939.

issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus directing the respondent
No.2 not to dispossess the petitioners from the
land in dispute in pursuance of the impugned
order dated 23.1.2025"

3. Contention of learned counsel for
the petitioners is that earlier order was passed
on 24.10.2024 by respondent No.2 under
Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. The
said order was ex parte and, therefore, the
petitioners filed writ petition no.40941 of 2024,
which was allowed and the matter was
remanded to decide afresh after providing
opportunity
of
hearing
and
reasonable
opportunity to lead evidence in support of their
case by order dated 10.1.2025. The order dated
10.1.2025 is quoted as under :-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner,
Shri
Manish
Goyal,
learned
Additional Advocate General assisted by
learned Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents and perused the record.

2. This petition has been filed for the
following relief:

"I. issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the Joint
Magistrate/ UP Ziladhikari, Sadar, Gorakhpur
in Case No. 37779 of 2024 (Computerized Case
No. T202405310337779) (Yogi Kamal Nath
Versus State) under Section 59 U.P. Kastkari
Act, 1939."

3. Contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that an order under Section
59 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 has been passed
against the petitioner without even issuing
notices to the petitioner and a long standing
revenue entry in favour of the petitioner has
been expunged by an ex-parte order.

4. Learned Additional Advocate
General though opposed the writ petition but
could not demonstrate that the order was
passed after hearing the opposite party who
was recorded tenure holder.

5. Since, the order has been passed
without issuing notices to the petitioner in
violation to the principles of natural justice, no
useful purpose would be served in keeping this
petition pending.

6. In view of the above, the order
dated 24.10.2024 passed by respondent no. 2
i.e. Joint Magistrate/ UP Ziladhikari, Sadar,
Gorakhpur in Case No. 37779 of 2024, is set
aside.
572 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. However, liberty is provided to the
respondents to initiate proper proceedings in
accordance with law and decide the same after
providing opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners and reasonable opportunity to lead
evidence in support of their case.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition
stands allowed. "

4. After the order dated 10.1.2025, it
appears that an application was moved by
respondent No.3 on 13.1.2025 on which
21.1.2025 date was fixed in the matter. On
21.1.2025,
petitioners
appeared
before
respondent No.2 and filed certified copy of the
order. On 23.1.2025, two days thereafter, again
order has been passed against the petitioners.

5. Contention of learned counsel for
the petitioners is that despite a direction given
by this Court to provide opportunity of filing an
objection as well as reasonable opportunity to
lead evidence, the entire proceedings have been
concluded within two days.

6.
Shri
Manish
Goel,
learned
Additional Advocate General has though
opposed the prayer but could not deny the fact
that
the
entire
proceedings
have
been
concluded within two days.

7. From the facts, as has come before
this Court, it is apparent that this order is
passed with undue haste and without granting
proper opportunity to the petitioner, and
therefore, I am of the view that order cannot be
sustained and the order dated 23.1.2025 is
hereby quashed and the proceedings are
remitted to respondent No.2 to decide afresh. It
is further provided that petitioners will file their
objections on or before 15.4.2025 and will also
file evidence in support of their claim. After
submission
of
objections
and
evidence,
proceedings shall be concluded by respondent
No.2 after providing opportunity of hearing to
all the concerned parties.

8. With these observations, the writ
petition stands allowed."

9. It appears that petitioners, thereafter,
filed an impleadment application as well as
application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. They
also filed their detailed objection along with
evidence, such as, Khatauni for Fasli 1415,
1391, 1377 and 1927 and also certified copy of
sale-deed dated 12.12.1962 and 13.12.1962 as
well as the orders passed under Section 59/61
dated 15.06.1966. By order impugned dated
17.05.2025, respondent no. 2 has cancelled the
name of Sahadat Hussain from Jamman-8.
Hence, this writ petition.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the entries are long standing and
the matter has already attained finality between
the parties as in proceedings initiated under
Section 59/61 both against Harnam Kunwari
and Gorakhnath Temple, compromise decree
was passed in the year 1966 and since then
grandfather of petitioners is recorded as
hereditary tenant. According to him, the land is
barren and was used for growing water chestnut
(singhara), thus, respondent no. 2 could not
have cancelled the entry which has been already
settled through a declaratory suit which cannot
be questioned in summary proceedings. In the
written argument filed by petitioners, in para
no. 6, it has been specifically stated that
petitioners were not cultivating the land and it
was vacant and the nature of the land is pond,
while some part is plain. According to him,
application dated 06.08.2024 could not have
been entertained and long standing entry should
not have been expunged by respondent no. 2
treating it to be an application under Section
33/39 of Land Revenue Act, 1901.

11. Lastly, it was emphasized that once
Sahadat Hussain was declared as a hereditary
tenant with the land in dispute and a detailed
order was passed in the year 1966, the same
cannot be challenged and questioned in
summary proceedings like this.

12. Sri S.P. Rai, learned counsel appearing
for private respondent no. 3, Yogi Kamal Nath
opposed the writ petition on the ground that the
claim of petitioner itself is barred by provisions
of Section 30 of the Act of 1939 as petitioners
7 All. Talimuddin & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
573
claim the land used for growing water chestnut
(singhara).

13. According to him, no rights of
hereditary tenant would accrue in terms of
Section 29. Moreover, explanation to subsection (3) of Section 4 provides that when a
land has remained uncultivated for a period of 7
years, it shall be deemed to have not been
previously cultivated. He then submitted that
land in question does not belong to petitioners
and the entries are standing wrongly for which
the application was moved for expunging the
name of Sahadat Hussain.

14. The State Counsel submitted that order
in question needs no interference on the ground
that Sub-Registrar had already inquired into the
matter and found that no such sale-deed as
claimed of 1962 was ever executed nor is on
record. Moreover, the claim is for exchanging
the 113.24 decimal land instead of 33 decimal
which is highly improbable. According to him,
petitioners were given ample opportunity but
they have failed to adduce any document to
justify their claim over the wrong entry
continuing for so long.

15. I have heard respective counsel for the
parties and perused the material on record.

16. Before delving into the issue in hand, a
cursory glance of some of provisions of the Act
of 1939 is necessary for resolving the dispute
placed before this Court.

17. Section 3(23) of the Act of 1939
defines "tenant", which is as under:-

" "tenant" means the person by
whom rent is, or but for a contract, express or
implied, would be payable and, except when the
contrary intention appears, includes a subtenant, but does not include a mortgagee of
proprietary or under-proprietary rights, a
grove-holder, a rent-free grantee, a grantee at a
favourable rate of rent or, except as otherwise
expressly provided by this Act, an underproprietor, a permanent lessee or a thekedar;"

18. Section 21 which is provided under
Chapter III of the Act of 1939 provides for
classes of tenants, which are as under:-

"21. Classes of tenants. - There shall
be, for the purposes of this Act, the following
classes of tenants, namely:

(a) permanent tenure-holders,

(b) fixed-rate tenants,

(c)tenants holding on special terms
in Oudh,

(d) ex-proprietary tenants,

(e) occupancy tenants,

(f) hereditary tenants,

(g) non-occupancy tenants."

19. Thus, we see that Act provides for
different classes of tenants. In the instant case,
the dispute is as to the entry of Sahadat
Hussain, grandfather of petitioners as a
hereditary tenant in the revenue records.
Hereditary tenants have been defined in Section
29 as under:-

"29. Hereditary tenants. - Every
person belonging to one or another of the
following classes shall be a hereditary tenant,
and subject to any contract which is not
contrary to the provisions of Section 4 shall be
entitled to all the rights conferred, and be
subject to all the liabilities imposed on
hereditary tenants by this Act, namely :

(a) every person who is, at the
commencement of this Act, a tenant of land
otherwise than as a permanent tenure-holder, a
fixed-rate tenant, a tenant holding on special
terms in Oudh, an ex-proprietary tenant, an
occupancy tenant, or except as otherwise
provided in this Act, as a sub-tenant, as a tenant
or a tenant of sir,

(b)every person who is, after the
commencement of this Act, admitted as a tenant
otherwise than as a tenant of sir or as a subtenant;

(c)every person who, in accordance
with the provisions of this Act, acquires
hereditary rights.
574 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

[Explanation. - For the purposes of
this section, 'sub-tenant' does not include a
person who holds land from a relation,
dependant or servant of the land-holder, unless
such relation, dependent or servant proves to
the satisfaction of the Court that he is a genuine
tenant of such land and has not been admitted
to prevent the accrual of hereditary rights in
favour of such person.] [Added by U.P. Act No.
10 of 1947.]"

20. Section 30 provides for the land in
which hereditary rights shall not accrue, which
is as under:-

"30. Land in which hereditary
rights shall not accrue. - Notwithstanding
anything in Section 29, hereditary rights shall
not accrue in, -

(1) grove-land, pasture land, or land
covered by water and used for the purpose of
growing singhara or other produce;

(2) land used for the casual or
occasional cultivation in the bed of a river;

(3) land acquired or held for a public
purpose or a work of public utility; and in
particular, and without prejudice to the
generality of this clause, -

(a) lands at present, or which may,
hereafter, be set apart for military encamping
grounds;

(b) lands situated within the limits of
any cantonment;

(c) lands included within railway or
canal boundaries;

(d) lands acquired by a town
improvement trust, in accordance with a
scheme sanctioned under Section 42 of the
United Provinces Town Improvement Act,
1919; or by a municipality for a purpose
mentioned in clause (a) or clause (c) of Section
8 of the United Provinces Municipalities Act,
1916;

(e) lands within the boundaries of
any Government forests;

(f) municipal trenching grounds;

(g) land held or acquired by
educational
institutions
for
purposes
of
instruction in agriculture;

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

(5) such areas included in tea estates
as the State Government with the previous
approval of both Houses of the Legislature, may
notify as areas in which, in the interest of the
tea industry, hereditary rights should not
accrue :

[Provided that, notwithstanding the
inclusion of any plot in any notification issued
under this clause before the first day of
September, 1946, such plot if held by a tenant
the aggregate area of whose holding exceeds
one-half of an acre, shall be deemed never to
have been included in any such notification.

Provided further that if any tenant
has been ejected since January 1, 1940, from
any plot to which the foregoing proviso applies
on grounds other than those on which a
hereditary tenant is liable to ejectment, such
ejected tenant shall be reinstated in such plot, if
he applies to a competent Court within six
months from the date of the commencement of
the United Provinces Tenancy (Amendment)
Act, 1947.] [Added by U.P. Act No. 10 of 1947.]

(6) land transferred by a mortgage to
which the provisions of the second paragraph of
sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Agra
Tenancy Act, 1926, apply during the period
specified in that paragraph;

[(7) The khudkasht of a landlord,
permanent tenure-holder or under-proprietor,
the local rate payable by whom does not exceed
Rupees
twenty-five
per
annum,
if
such
khudkasht is let out when such landlord,
7 All. Talimuddin & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
575
permanent tenure-holder or under-proprietor is
in the military, naval or air service of the
Government or within three months before the
entry in or three months after the cessation, of
such service :

Provided that provisions of this
clause shall not apply, -

(a) if, at the time such khudkasht is
let out, there are several co-sharers in such
khudkasht and not all of them are in the service
of the Government as aforesaid, unless the cosharers who are not in such service, belong to
one or more of tine following classes, namely,
females, minors, lunatics, idiots or persons
incapable of cultivation by reason of blindness
or physical infirmity; and

(b) beyond the thirtieth day of June
next following the expiry of two years after the
cessation
of
such
service
of
landlord,
permanent tenure-holder or under-proprietor,
as the case may be.

(8) Lands notified by the State
Government in accordance with rules to be
framed by the State Government for the purpose
of tanugya plantation.

Explanation. - For the purposes of
this sub-section 'taungya plantation' means the
system of afforestation where under the
plantation of forest trees according to a
scientific system, is done in the initial stages
simultaneously
with
the
cultivation
of
agricultural crop which ceases when the young
trees begin to form a canopy and make further
cultivation of agricultural crops impossible.]
[Inserted by U.P. Act No. 18 of 1942.]"

21. Thus, from the reading of Section 21,
29 and 30, it is clear that though there are
various classes of tenants and hereditary tenants
having defined in Section 29, but such right
shall not accrue in the land mentioned in
Section 30, such as, grove-land, pasture land, or
land covered by water and used for the purpose
of growing singhara or other produce, land used
for the casual or occasional cultivation in the
bed of a river, land acquired or held for a public
purpose or for a work of public utility, such
tracts of shifting or unstable cultivation etc.

22. In the instant case, petitioners claim
that Sahadat Hussain had filed a declaratory suit
no. 64 under Section 59/61 of the Act of 1939
against Smt. Harnam Kunwari for declaring him
as hereditary tenant. Annexure-2 to the writ
petition is copy of the plaint filed before
Assistant Collector, First Class, Gorakhpur.
Para 2 of the plaint clearly reveals that Sahadat
Hussain was in occupation of pit (gaddha) for
14-15 years in which he was growing water
chestnut (singhara). Judgment dated 15.06.1966
declaring Sahadat Hussain as hereditary tenant
clearly reveals that plot in suit which is in shape
of gaddha and produces water chestnut
(singhara) in it, on admission by Harnam
Kunwari suit was decreed and plaintiff Sahadat
Hussain was declared as hereditary tenant.
Judgment dated 15.06.1966 is extracted hereasunder:-

"In the Court of Sri G. Shanker,
Assistant Collector, Ist class, Gorakhpur

Suit No. 64 u/s 59/1 of U.P. T. Act
Mohalla Purana Gorakhpur, City Gorakhpur

Sahadat Hussain vs Smt Harnam
Kunwari

Copy of the Judgment

Plaintiff filed this suit under section
59/61 of U.P. Tenancy Act for declaration that
he is a tenant of the plot detailed at the foot of
the plaint. He further alleged that he is in
possession over this plot in suit which is the
shape of Garaha and produces singhara in it.
That the trees situated around the land in suit
are also in his possession That the defendant is
an influential person and the Patwari does not
record his name due to his fear hence this suit
for declaration.

2. Defndt. Harnam Kunwari turned
up and filed Eqbaldava in favour of the plaintiff
admitting his case. The plaintiff filed extract of
576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Khewat 1372 F and Khatauni 1372p in support
of his claim and has a examined himself who
has affirmed his case on oath.

Order

The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in
terms of the Eqbaldava and he is declared
hereditary tenant of the plot in suit. Let the
papers be corrected accordingly.

Sd.
G. Shanker 15.6.66

(G. Shanker)

Assistant
Collector
Ist class Gorakhpur 15.6.66

Judgment,
signed,
dated
and
pronounced in open court

Sd.
G. Shanker 15.6.66

(G. Shanker)

Assistant
Collector Ist class

Gorakhpur 15.6.66"

23. Section 59 provides for declaratory
suit by tenant for declaration of right or share,
while Section 30 clearly bars that hereditary
rights shall not accrue in the land enumerated
therein, such as, grove-land, pasture land, or
land covered by water and used for the purpose
of
growing
singhara
or
other
produce,
notwithstanding
anything
in
Section
29,
meaning thereby that hereditary tenancy would
not accrue in respect of land on which singhara
is grown.

24. Thus, the decree of the year 1966
which was passed on the basis of admission by
defendant is a nullity as suit was decreed under
Section 59/61 against provisions of Section 30.
It clearly appears that it was a collusive suit for
providing
hereditary
tenancy
to
Sahadat
Hussain over the land mentioned in Section 30
for which no hereditary right could accrue.

25. It was solely on the basis of judgment
of the year 1966 that name of Sahadat Hussain
continued in Jamman-8 as hereditary tenant.
The decree passed in the year 1966 is totally in
contravention of provisions of Section 30 of the
Act. Once no such hereditary tenancy right
could have accrued in favour of Sahadat
Hussain, the entry could not have been
continued in Jamman-8.

26. Moreover, it is an admitted case of
petitioners that no agricultural work is being
done over the land in question. The entire case
of petitioners and their grandfather hinges on
the fact that land in question is being used for
growing water chestnut (singhara), thus, no
hereditary tenancy right could accrue in their
favour and the entry cannot continue. Apart
from the fact that declaratory suit was filed by
Sahadat Hussain in the year 1966 which was
decreed, petitioners have no other case to rely
upon the entry standing since then in Jamman8.

27. Petitioners, post remand, could only
place before the authorities the judgment
rendered in 1966 and also a copy of sale-deed,
which after verification and report of SubRegistrar was found to be incorrect. The
authorities proceeded to reject the recall
application filed by petitioners holding that no
such hereditary tenancy could be continued
over the land marked in Section 30 of the Act.

28. Thus, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, I find that no such
declaration could have been made in favour of
Sahadat Hussain over the land mentioned in
Section 30 of the Act once the case of plaintiff
is that land in question was used for growing
water chestnut (singhara), decree passed in the
year 1966 is void being against the provisions
of Section 30.

29. In view of above, I find that no
interference is required in the order impugned
7 All. Smt. Savita Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
577
dated 17.05.2025 expunging the name of
Sahadat Hussain from Jamman-8 as hereditary
tenant.

30. Writ petition fails and is hereby
dismissed.

31. However, no order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 577
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Writ C No. 21802 of 2025

Smt Savita Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Om Prakash Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anuj Pratap Singh, C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to cancellation of industrial plot
allotment by Uttar Pradesh State Industrial
Development Authority (UPSIDA) and rejection
of petitioner's restoration application on grounds
of limitation and non-compliance with lease
conditions. Issue for consideration was whether
the petitioner, having defaulted in payment and
failed to establish industrial activity within the
stipulated time, is entitled to restoration of lease
and quashing of e-auction proceedings.

Headnotes
Uttar
Pradesh
State
Industrial
Development
Authority
(UPSIDA)
-
Allotment of Industrial Plot - Cancellation
of
allotment
-
Repeated
Defaults
-
Financial Hardship - Restoration of Lease
- Equity - Delay and Non-Performance -
Public
Interest
-
Industrial
Policy
Considerations
-
Equitable
indulgence
cannot be granted to a party in prolonged
breach
of
contractual
and
statutory
obligations - Restoration after repeated
defaults
undermines
fiscal
discipline,
transparency,
and
industrial
growth
objectives - Principles of Natural Justice -
Public Trust Doctrine - Industrial Policy -
UPSIDA's action are neither arbitrary nor
violative
of
natural
justice;
writ
jurisdiction cannot be invoked to condone
persistent default.
Held: Court is not persuaded to accept the
petitioner's explanation of financial hardship and
medical exigencies as a valid justification for
years of non-compliance with the essential
terms of the allotment and lease - A mere
expression of willingness to pay outstanding
dues after the initiation of e-auction proceedings
or subsequent to the cancellation of the
allotment cannot obliterate a prolonged and
willful
failure
to
adhere
to
contractual
obligations - Even if the restoration application
was within one month from the date of service,
it cannot absolve substantive and prolonged
breaches - Restoring a lease after repeated
defaults strikes at the very foundation of fiscal
discipline, public interest, and industrial policy
objectives - UPSIDA acted lawfully and in public
interest - Cancellation of allotment and rejection
of restoration are justified - No interference
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India -
Petition dismissed - No order as to costs. (paras
11 to 22) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Skyline Contractors Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P.,
(2008) 8 SCC 265; Kamla Nehru Memorial
Trust and Others v. U.P. State Industrial
Development Corporation Limited and Others,
SLP(C) Nos. 31887-88/2017; M.C. Mehta v.
Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388; Centre for
Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India,
(2012) 3 SCC 1

List of Acts
Constitution of India; U.P. Urban Planning and
Development Act, 1973

List of Keywords
Allotment - Lease Cancellation - Restoration
Application - Financial Hardship - Industrial
Area - UPSIDA - Default - Public Interest -