Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114362-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16279 of 2025 Petitioner :- Fakir Chand Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard Shri Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.3- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (in short "NOIDA"). 2. The writ petition has been preferred for quashing the impugned order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar and for a direction to respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in dispute. 3. The record in question reflects that the petitioner belongs to SC community. The State Government under the welfare policy had allotted patta/ lease of the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner on 30.03.1987 for the purposes of farming/ plantation on certain terms and conditions. Later on an attempt was made by NOIDA to uproot the petitioner from the land in dispute. The petitioner had also made representation to the authority concerned to mutate his name over the land in dispute. Since no action was taken, the petitioner had preferred Writ Petition No.16628 of 2024, which was disposed of on 17.05.2024 relegating the petitioner to move detailed representation to the authority concerned and the said representation was directed to be decided in accordance with law. In response to the said order, the petitioner moved representation to the District Magistrate for mutating his name over the land in dispute, which was rejected by the order impugned dated 18.03.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this backdrop, states that the petitioner is very poor and belong to SC Community. Under the welfare scheme, lease was executed for plantation on 30.03.1987 with certain terms and conditions. The petitioner in terms of the lease/ patta had developed the land for plantation. At no point of time, he had utilised the property contrary to the terms and conditions of lease dated 30.03.1987. Only in this backdrop the petitioner had moved the application for mutation over the land in question before the competent authority. On instructions, he states that at present the petitioner is pressing the only relief that he may not be dispossessed from the land in dispute. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for NOIDA states that the disputed land falls under the territorial jurisdiction of NOIDA. He submits that as per the order impugned it is not in dispute that certain lease was executed in favour of the petitioner for plantation. As per the terms and conditions earmarked in the lease, no other activity can be carried out over the land in dispute without the leave of the authority. He submits that the claim of the petitioner for mutation is not justified and as such the order impugned does not call for any interference. 6. Learned Standing Counsel also states that order impugned does not warrant any interference as the petitioner instead of doing the work for which the lease was accorded, has tried to get bhumidhari right over the land in dispute. The land is earmarked for public purpose (Navin Parti) and no such bhumidhari right can be settled even by the State. 7. Heard rival submissions and perused the record. 8. For ready reference, the condition nos.3, 8 and 15 of the lease dated 30.03.1987 are reproduced as under:- "3. ववृकक्षाररोपण करनने वक्षालने व्यकक्ति कने वल ववृकक्षों कने हही स्वक्षामही हक्षोंगने तथक्षा भभूकम पर उनकक्षा स्वत्व नहहीं रहनेगक्षा जजिसकक्षा स्वक्षाकमत्व गक्षाम सभक्षा / रक्षाज्य सरकक्षार मम कनकहत रहनेगक्षा | 8. ववृकक्षाररोपण करनने वक्षालने व्यकक्ति करो पक्षाप्त भभूकम मम फसलक्षों करो लगक्षानने/ उगक्षानने कक्षा अजधिकक्षार नहहीं हरोगक्षा तथक्षा वह अजधिक सने अजधिक चक्षारने तथक्षा इ धिन कने ववृकक्षों करो कमजश्रित खनेतही कर सकतक्षा हहै | 15. रक्षाज्य सरकक्षार करो ववृकक्षाररोपण हनेततु पदत्त भभूकम कने पतुनगर्ग्रहण कक्षा अजधिकक्षार हरोगक्षा, यकद ककसही सक्षावर्ग्रजिकनक पयरोजिन हनेततु इसककी आवश्यकतक्षा हरो | उस दशक्षा मम अनतुज्ञकप्त धिक्षारक करो ववृकक्षों करो कक्षाटकर उनककी लकड़ही लने जिक्षानने यक्षा उन ववृकक्षों करो लकड़ही कने जलए भभूकम अध्यक्षाकपत अजधिकनयम कने अंतगर्ग्रत दनेय पकतकक्षार पक्षानने कक्षा अजधिकक्षार हरोगक्षा |" 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition stands disposed of with observation that in case the lease of the petitioner is still subsisting and he has not flouted the terms and conditions of the lease, he shall not be uprooted from the land in question without taking recourse as available in law. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 SP/ Digitally signed by :- SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad