Saumya Cooperative Housing Society vs State of U.P. and Others

Hon''ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard Sri. Yashwant Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Naiyer, learned Addl. Advocate General and Sri. Om Subhash Tripathi, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel.

The matter was heard and what transpires is that two issues were raised before this Court in the earlier round of litigation on behalf of the petitioner when the Collector, Allahabad, refused to give a No Objection Certificate for sanction of the Map over the land in question and on the second occasion by issuing a notice to the petitioner as to why the renewal of the lease in favour of the petitioner be not cancelled. The petitioner aggrieved filed 2 writ petitions, being Writ Petition No. 42687 of 2000 and 52234 of 2003. The said two writ petitions came to be disposed of by a common judgment dated 6.9.2006. A copy of the said judgment has been brought on record through a supplementary-affidavit filed today.

In terms of the said judgment, which also takes notice of the order of the State Government dated 5.12.2005, the Collector, Allahabad, was called upon to take a decision in respect of these 2 matters that were engaging the attention of the Court.

The Collector, accordingly, took a decision on 24.10.2007 restoring the lease and thereafter imposing 5 conditions therein that are contained in the penultimate paragraph of his order. The Collector in exercise of his fiscal powers conferred under the U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901 read with the Tenancy Laws applicable further issued a direction that accordingly mutation in the records shall be carried out by the authorities and the petitioners shall be called upon to deposit the land revenue as applicable.

The petitioner contends that this order is final and, therefore, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the authorities, subordinate to him, namely Tehsildar and Naib Tehsildar have no jurisdiction to over reach the said order of the Collector.

The learned Addl. Advocate General and the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel, with the help of the counter-affidavit and the documents brought on record, submit that the order of the Collector suffered from certain deficiencies which have been pointed out in the letters sent by the then Commissioner on 3.5.2008 and also the letter of the successor District Magistrate dated 13.8.2009. The respondents, therefore, are taking shelter of these communications inter se between the Collector and the State Government to support the impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Authorities, which are under challenge in the present writ petition.

The issue involved directly is regarding the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the authorities subordinate to him to pass an order contrary to the directions of the Collector as contained in the order dated 24.10.2007.

The learned Addl. Advocate General prays for a short adjournment to assist the Court on this issue. Put up day-after-tomorrow.