Mohit vs State of U. P. and others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The contention raised is that in the proceeding of cancellation initiated by the petitioner u/s 198(4) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, an interim order had been passed, which was confirmed but later on came to be vacated. Learned counsel submits that the order of status quo ought to have been maintained as the proceedings are still pending and have not been finalized.

Sri Singh submits that the petitioner has a two fold claim. Firstly, that the lease granted to the respondent is fake and secondly the petitioner is entitled to retain possession over the land as he has perfected his possession in terms of Section 123(1) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

Sri Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, contends that the petitioner is a rank trespasser and he has no right or title over the land inasmuch as there is no valid allotment in his favour and any claim of the petitioner is without any basis. It is also contended that primarily the application on behalf of the petitioner for cancellation of the lease was not maintainable as it was barred by time under the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 198 of the Act and even otherwise the petitioner has no locus to maintain the writ petition.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, the petitioner is yet to establish his claim over the land on the alternative plea raised by him. For this, the petitioner has two separate remedies and that cannot be substituted as an alternative method invoked by way of proceedings under sub-section (4) of Section 198 of the Act. So far as the validity of lease of the respondents is concerned, the same can be questioned provided the application has been moved within time as prescribed under the provisions of Section 198 if the petitioner has any locus and falls within the definition of an aggrieved person.

Accordingly, there was no occasion for grant of any interim order pending the dispute so long as the lease of the respondent No. 5 is intact. The petitioner, therefore, can approach the authority for an expeditious disposal of the proceedings, which are pending and if the application is filed, the same may be disposed of in terms of the directions issued by the Commissioner.

The writ petition is disposed of.