Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1017-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11296 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S Shiv Filling Station Ataria Sitapur Thru. Pro. Shiv Bhagwan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Katyayan Mishra,Chandra Prakash,Surya Prakash Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohammad Ehtesham Khan Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. The two Khataunis produced by the petitioner are also taken on record. Heard Shri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Mohammad Ehtesham Khan, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 7 and 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records what comes out is that Gata No. 378 situated at Village- Ataria (Manva), Tehsil- Sidhauli, District- Sitapur was leased out by the farmers in favour of the Oil Company which is represented by Shri M.E. Khan, learned counsel. After the said lease deed an oil station/ retail outlet was constructed thereon by the Oil Company and it was allotted to the petitioner for sale of petrol and diesel. This was done in 1995. The lease deed was for 30 years. The lease deed would expire on 31.03.2025, however, by the impugned orders No Objection Certificate granted by the district authorities in favour of the petitioner for running the said oil station/ retail outlet on Gata No. 378 has been cancelled. So also the sale license, on the ground that in fact, the retail outlet has been constructed not on in Gata No. 378 but on Gata No. 377 which happens to be the bhunidhari land of the Khatedars. Now, the Khatedars of Gata No. 377 are not before us. The petitioner's right at best would be to operate the retail outlet, as, it has not constructed the same. However, the petitioner while operating the retail outlet would act as an agent of the Oil Company. The dispute is essentially between the Oil Company, the lessor and the third party i.e. the Khatedars of Gata No. 377. Reliance has been placed upon the order dated 10.07.2014 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3615 (M/S) of 2014; Shiv Bhagwan Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. wherein the order passed by the Revenue Court under Section 209 dated 26.12.2013 has been stayed. The tenure holders of Gata No. 377 has initiated proceedings against the petitioner and others under Section 209 for eviction wherein the aforesaid order dated 26.12.2013 was passed. The contention of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the said order has been stayed by this Court, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to operate the retail outlet. In this writ petition, we are not concerned with question of title or possession. We are only concerned as to whether No Objection Certificate granted by the district authorities for establishment of retail outlet on Gata No. 378 was valid and correct or not. If it was not whether the District Magistrate could have recalled the NOC which was granted on 10.01.1996, by the impugned order dated 16.11.2024. It is an admitted fact that the basis of the impugned order is that the retail outlet has been constructed on Gata No. 377 and not on 378 for which the NOC was granted. The tenure holders of Gata No. 377 have not been impleaded herein as opposite parties. The petitioner or the lessors who had executed 30 years lease deed in favour of the Oil Company and who are the tenure holders of Gata No. 378 can get Gata No. 378 demarcated and this in our opinion will resolve the issue. Once, after demarcation if it is found that the retail outlet has been constructed on land forming part of Gata No. 377 and there is no dispute as to tittle and possession in respect of the said land nor in respect of the lease granted, then, obviously, the District Magistrate would revisit his order which is impugned herein, however, if it is found that the retail outlet has not been constructed on Gata No. 378 but has been constructed on Gata No. 377, then, neither the Oil Company nor its agent i.e. the petitioner before us would have any right to operate retail outlet on the said land unless of course some amicable settlement is arrived at between the parties concerned. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the lessors who are the tenure holders of Gata No. 378 to move an application for demarcation of the said Gata. In the event, such an application is filed the same shall be decided expeditiously keeping in mind that the lease is expiring in March, 2025. Apart from it no other orders can be passed at this stage because admittedly the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us khataunis pertaining to Gata No. 377 and Gata No. 378 and Gata No. 377 is recorded as bhumidhari land and those bhumidhars have not executed any lease deed either in favour of the Oil Company or the petitioner. If the petitioner has a cause in future in respect of retail outlet i.e. based on the aforesaid demarcation exercise but before expiry of the lease, unless of course it is renewed, it can approach the Court again if there is any fresh cause of action. . (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 7.1.2025 R.K.P. Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench