Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20077 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1002519 of 2000 Petitioner :- Jawahar Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Collector Hardoi And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- P.C.Verma,Raghunath Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A. Kumar,D.C. Mukherjee,R.L. Pathak Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The claim setup by the petitioner is that he is under possession on the land in dispute since 1976. Under Bhumi Sudhar Yojna, which came into existence in 1988, the petitioner was granted lease, being landless and on the "usar" land. An objection was filed by the respondent No.4 that the land which was leased out in favour of the petitioner is not "usar" land, therefore, the allotment of land is wholly unjustified, illegal and contrary to the Bhumi Sudhar Yojna. Considering the claim setup by the parties, the prescribed authority passed an order on 22.2.1992, whereby application of the respondent was allowed and the lease was cancelled, against which, the petitioner filed an appeal which was rejected vide order dated 23.5.2000, holding that the lease was granted on the agricultural land, which is not "usar". Against the aforesaid two orders, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is landless person and when the land was leased out to him, it was "usar" and was not liable to cultivate the crops and after making the land for agricultural purpose, he is cultivating the crops. Next submission is that at the time of argument, his counsel was not present and the appellate court has passed the order ex-parte. 4. On the other hand, Sri Divesh Mishra, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the order impugned does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and it has rightly been passed, taking into consideration the entire facts and material on record. Next submission is that the appellate court decided the issue of nature of the land on perusal of records produced by the petitioner, therefore, both the orders are just and valid. 5. After having heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record. 6. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner was granted lease in the year 1988 under Bhumi Sudhar Yojna. It is admitted by the petitioner that the land, when it was leased out, was "usar" and after making best efforts to cultivate crops, it became useful for the purpose of cultivation, therefore, the finding recorded by both the courts below that the land was "usar" is correct. 7. On perusal of record, is is also apparent that once the counsel was not present before the appellate court, the entire material was taken into consideration, which was produced by the appellant and thereafter, the order was passed, therefore, it cannot be said that the order is without considering the material on record and ex-parte in nature. 8. In view of the above, no case has been made out for interference in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Gautam Digitally signed by :- GAUTAM TECKCHANDANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench