Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16516 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1001314 of 1999 Petitioner :- Sudhakar Mani Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Collector Gonda And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.P.Tiwari,Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Chief Standing Counsel,R.P. Ojha Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shatrughan Chaudhary, learned Additional CSC for respondent - State. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 20.03.1999 passed by the Additional Collector, Gonda - opposite party No.2 annexure 1 to the writ petition. 3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was granted lease for construction of house on 17.03.1990 when he was not in job. A complaint under Section 122 C (6) was made against the petitioner on 28.11.1993. A show cause notice under Section 198(4) was issued to the petitioner and was replied by the petitioner -annexure 9 to the writ petition. 4. Vide order dated 20.03.1999, lease of the house of the petitioner was cancelled by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Gonda on the ground that the petitioner is in job, therefore, he is not entitled for lease granted in the year 1999. 5. The petitioner replied that at the time of grant of lease, he was not in job. He came into job in the year 1993, therefore on this ground lease cannot be cancelled. 6. In the impugned order, the ADM has noted that the lease was granted in the year 1990 and he came into job in the year 1993. In spite of that, lease of the petitioner was cancelled. 7. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the lease was granted to the petitioner in the year 1990 when he was not in job and he came into job in the year 1993, therefore, cancellation of lease is wholly erroneous and misconceived in nature. 8. He next submitted that once the ADM noted in the impugned order that the lease was granted in the year 1990 and the petitioner came into service in the year 1993, there was no justification to cancel the lease of the petitioner. 9. On considering the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the impugned order has been passed on wholly erroneous and misconceived ground. Once it was noticed in the impugned order that the lease was granted in the year 1990 to the petitioner and he became in service in the year 1993, there was no justification to cancel the lease on the ground that the petitioner was in job. 10. In view of finding recorded above, the impugned order dated 20.03.1999 passed by the Additional Collector, Gonda - opposite party No.2 annexure 1 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. 11. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 12. In the opinion of this Court, the Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue) may take care that officers should pass orders on merit taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case. Order Date :- 21.3.2025 Adarsh K Singh Digitally signed by :- ADARSH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench