Allahabad High Court
Om Prakash vs Additional Comm.Administration ... on 24 September, 2025
Author: Irshad Ali
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:59661
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 1003005 of 2000
Om Prakash
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Additional Comm.Administration Faizabad And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
N.N.Jaiswal, Prashant Jaiswal
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 3
HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Divesh Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
2. Card notice was issued to the respondent Nos.3 and 4, due to the death of their counsel Late Mr. R.N. Gupta, Advocate and the notice was found to be deemed sufficient upon them.
3. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the orders dated 25.11.1998 and 23.5.2000, passed by respondent Nos.2 and 1, contained in Annexures-5 and 6 respectively.
4. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was granted lease by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 on the resolution of the gaon sabha. An application was moved by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 before the respondent No.2 for cancellation of lease of the petitioner under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 on 23.8.1999. Notices were issued to the petitioner and in pursuance thereof, he filed written statement/ objection before the respondent No.2 on 1.8.1990. The respondent No.2 has cancelled the lease of the petitioner vide order dated 25.11.1998. The petitioner filed revision against the order passed by the respondent No.2 before the respondent No.1, which has also been dismissed.
5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that vide resolution of the gaon sabha, on special circumstances to provide in case of vasectomy, lease is to be granted to the petitioner alongwith five other persons, therefore, cancellation of lease and rejection of revision are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Next submission is that the petitioner was major at the time of grant of lease and was residing separately from the house of Gram Pradhan, who is father of the petitioner, therefore, findings recorded otherwise in the impugned order, are malicious in nature and are liable to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner is son of Gram Pradhan and under Section 28-C of the Panchayat Raj Act, there is restriction to grant lease to the family members of the Gram Pradhan. Next submission is that at the time of allotment of lease, the petitioner was minor, therefore, he is not entitled for the grant of lease. It is next submitted that the impugned orders passed, do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and are just and valid orders.
7. After having heard the rival submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record.
8. It is alleged by the petitioner that he was granted lease under special circumstances, excluding the claim settled for the purpose of lease to the landless persons and to the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe residents of the particular village, therefore, the lease cannot be cancelled on the ground of the reasons assigned in the impugned order. In this regard, it is held that at the time of allotment of lease, the father of the petitioner was Gram Pradhan and there is specific finding that the petitioner was residing alongwith his father, therefore, as per the prohibitory provision contained under Section 28-C of the Panchayat Raj Act, the petitioner was not entitled for the grant of lease. Finding returned in this regard has also not been challenged by the petitioner that it is a perverse finding and it is factually incorrect.
9. In regard to the grant of lease, the special circumstance can be overlooked, as the lease should be allotted to the landless persons or persons of the category of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe as per Section 28-C of the Panchayat Raj Act, therefore, the lease granted to the petitioner is wholly unsustainable in law. Finding has also been recorded in the impugned orders that the petitioner is not the landless person, he is having 3 1/4 bighas land in his name. This finding has also not been challenged in the writ petition by enclosing the documents to show that he is landless. Finding has also been returned in regard to the fact that at the time of grant of lease, the petitioner was minor and in this regard, a public document in the shape of election roll was produced, wherein the petitioner was found to be not major to hold the entitlement for the grant of lease. The finding returned has also not been challenged in the writ petition.
10. In view of the discussion made above, there is no scope of interference in the impugned orders. Accordingly, this Court declines to interfere in the orders impugned in exercise of discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
(Irshad Ali,J.) September 24, 2025 Gautam