JAGARNATH ALIAS PULLU v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (JUDICIAL) MANDAL VINDHYACHAL MIRZAPUR AND 112 OTHERS
WRIC/4368/2025 · 2025-03-19
Kshitij Shailendra
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 17138 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 17138 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40528 Court No. - 44 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4368 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jagarnath Alias Pullu Respondent :- Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Mandal Vindhyachal Mirzapur And 112 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mithilesh Kumar Pandey,Sudhir Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Singh Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Shri Pradeep Singh, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no.3 (Gaon Sabha).
2. Considering the peculiar facts of this case and the order proposed to be passed, this Court does not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the private respondents whose interest in the matter would be protected while deciding this petition.
3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that lease was granted in favour of various persons including the petitioner in the year 1984 and in the year 1987, complaints were filed seeking cancellation of lease. By an order dated 30.08.1990 while the Additional Collector, Gyanpur, Varanasi kept the lease granted in favour of other persons intact, he cancelled the petitioner's lease on the ground that as per the Tehsil report, the petitioner, being allottee No.13, was working in Bhadohi Woolens Mill and, being a salaried employee, his eligibility was under doubts. The order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Revision No.135/33/2013-
2014. Learned Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Vindhyachal Region, Mirzapur has, by order impugned dated 30.08.2024, dismissed the revision by a half paged order and the only observation as regard the petitioner is that the lease was cancelled
on the ground that there was a service road existing on the spot.
4. Learned counsel submits that the revisional court has not carefully gone into the record of proceedings nor even the
reasoning assigned by the Additional Collector in the order dated 30.08.1990 wherein ground for cancellation of lease was taken as alleged working status of the petitioner in Bhadohi Woolens Mill and altogether a different reason has been assigned while dismissing the revision.
5. Learned counsel has also disputed the correctness of the findings regarding his salaried status at the relevant point in time by placing reliance upon certain documents.
6. Learned counsel further submits with reference to paragraph no.22 of the writ petition that the petitioner is in actual and physical possession over Arazi No. 461, area 4 biswa.
7. Be that as it may, since this Court is convinced that the Revisional Court has not examined the petitioner's claim nor has it seen reasoning recorded for cancelling the petitioner's lease, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending before this Court as, ultimately, the matter shall have to be decided by the learned Additional Commissioner on merits dealing with the contention of the petitioner in the light of cancellation of lease of allottee No.13, as noted in the order dated 30.08.1990.
8. The writ petition is, accordingly, partly allowed.
9. The order impugned dated 30.08.2024 passed by the respondent no.1 (Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Mandal Vindhyachal, Mirzapur) in Revision No.135/33/2013-2014 is set aside.
10. The aforesaid revision is restored to its original number and status.
11. The revision shall be decided on merits after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties thereto within a period of three months from the date a certified/ true attested copy of the instant order is filed before the respondent no.1.
12. Till disposal of revision, status quo with regard to nature and possession over Arazi No.461, area 4 biswa, shall be maintained by the parties.
13. It is also the responsibility of the petitioner's counsel before the revisional court to serve a copy of this order upon the learned counsel representing the private respondents before filing the same before the respondent no.1 so that they may acquire knowledge of revival of the proceedings of the revision.
Order Date :- 20.3.2025 AKShukla/- Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad