2025:UHC:6886-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 1487 of 2024 06 August, 2025 Smt. Suman Vinay Narain Agarwal --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Anurag Bisaria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari and Mr. Inderpal Kohli, learned Standing Counsels for the State. -------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. (Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging order dated 03.11.2022 passed by Collector, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Case No.51/05 of 2013-14. The said order was passed by Collector in proceedings under Section 6-A of U.P. Government Estates Thekedari Abolition Act, 1958 (for short, “G.E.T.A”) as amended by Re-enactment and Validation Act, 1970. 2. Contention of petitioner is that even though her late husband had given option pursuant to notice issued by Collector to him under Form 9 and 10 (Rule 23) of 1960 Rules framed under G.E.T.A. Act 1958, however, Collector failed to consider option given by him by observing that he had created sub-lease in favour of different persons and he was not in cultivatory possession over the land which was leased 1 2025:UHC:6886-DB out to him by the State Government. Thus, it is contended that Collector erred in law in not considering option given by petitioner’s husband indicating his choice of land. 3. Learned State Counsel, per contra, submits that 5193 Acre of land was leased out by State Government in favour of one Mr. Prag Narayan Agarwal in the year 1933; the said land was reportedly inherited by his two sons, namely, Mr. Shiv Narayan Agarwal and Mr. Kamrendra Narayan Agarwal and petitioner is daughter-in-law of late Mr. Shiv Narayan Agarwal. 4. Learned State Counsel submits that predecessor in interest of the petitioner leased out the entire land falling in his share to two companies, thus, he ceased to be in a cultivatory possession of land leased out by his father. He refers to Section 4(b) and 6-A of G.E.T.A. Act and submits that right, if any, is available to a lessee is only in respect of land which is under his personal cultivation. 5. Learned State Counsel has drawn our attention to paragraph no.30 of judgment dated 21.02.2014 rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in WPMS No.962 of 2005. Paragraph no.30 of the said judgment is extracted below:- “30. So far as the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1001 of 2005 (MS) and Writ Petition No. 1002 of 2005 (MS) are concerned, since they are sub- lessees, in view of Section 4(b), they cannot acquire any hereditary right in the land. The proceedings would be initiated against the successors in interest of the lessees in view of Section 6-A of the amended Act. Therefore, the sub-lessees have no right to continue over the land in dispute. Since the land is separated, their rights from the lease land automatically ceased. Besides this, it is also relevant 2 2025:UHC:6886-DB to mention here that admittedly the sub-leases had been granted by the lessees in favour of these petitioners after the determination of the earlier leases. Therefore, the lessees were not having any right to execute the sub-leases. Therefore, it is directed that the names of these petitioners, if any, recorded in the revenue records on the basis of the sub-lessees be expunged from the revenue records. The notices, which have been issued by the Collector to these petitioners, were not at all required. Therefore, on that count, the impugned notices are set aside. The Collector shall take steps accordingly in accordance with law to correct the revenue records and for taking over possession. Since this land is handed over by the lessees to the sub-lessees and it is not in possession of the lessees, therefore, there is no need for the Collector to issue any fresh notice to the lessees in respect of this land as it is already separated by the lessees themselves by hading over possession to the sub-lessees and it also exceeds the ceiling area. Writ Petition No. 1001 of 2005 (MS) and Writ Petition No. 1002 of 2005 (MS) stand disposed of.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. Learned State Counsel thus, submits that the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid judgment has held that because of the lease granted by processor in interest of petitioner, she does not have any subsisting right over the land in question. Learned State Counsel relies upon Section 4(b) and 6-A of the U.P. Government Estates Thekedari Abolition Act, 1958 as referred in paragraph no.20 of the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge in WPMS No.962 of 2005, which is extracted below: “20. First and foremost, for the facility of reference, the old Section 4(b) of the UP Act No. 1 of 1959 and the new Section 4(b) as has been amended by the UP Act No. 28 of 1970, are reproduced herein below: “Old Section: Section 4 (b) where under and in accordance with the terms of the lease, the lessee has brought any land included in the lease under his personal cultivation, the lessee shall become a hereditary 3 2025:UHC:6886-DB tenant of such land liable to pay rent equal to the rent calculated at hereditary rates applicable on the date immediately preceding the date of determination. Provided that where the total area of such land held by the lessee exceeds 30 acres, for the lessee shall be a hereditary tenant of only 30 acres area and the excess area, to be separated and demarcated from the 30 acres area by the Assistant Collector in charge of the sub-division on the application of the lessee or the Collector shall become and be deemed to be vacant land and the lessee shall be liable to ejectment from such excess area. New Section: Section 4(b) where under and in accordance with the terms of the lease, the lessee has brought any land included in the lease under his personal cultivation, the lessee shall become hereditary tenant of such land, or where such land exceeds the ceiling area, then of so much of such land as in aggregation with any other land held by him in Uttar Pradesh makes up the ceiling area, and shall be liable as such to pay rent equal or proportionate, as the case may be, to the rent, if any, payable in terms of the lease.” “6-A In respect of any land included in the lease which under and in accordance with the terms of the lease the lessee has brought under his personal cultivation, the determination and demarcation of the ceiling area and the surplus area, the acquisition of and the taking of possession over the surplus area, the determination and payment of compensation for the acquisition of the surplus area, and all other matters connected therewith shall be governed by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.” 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not challenged judgment rendered by learned Single Judge in WPMS No.962 of 2005. Thus, it has attained finality qua the petitioner. In paragraph no.24 of the writ petition, petitioner has admitted that her predecessor had incorporated two Public Limited Companies, namely, Prag Agro Farm Ltd. and Pawan Popular Ltd. These companies had filed Writ Petition (M/S) 4 2025:UHC:6886-DB No.1001/2005 and Writ Petition No.1002/2005, which were decided with Writ Petition No.962 of 2005, referred to above. 8. It is also not in dispute that petitioner did not file any written statement or objection before Collector and he simply submitted option indicating his choice of land. Since learned Single Judge has held that predecessor in interest of the petitioner do not have any right over the land in question, therefore, Collector was justified in not considering the option given by petitioner’s husband. 9. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by Collector, Udham Singh Nagar. Thus, the petition fails and the same is dismissed. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 06.08.2025 SS 5 SUKHBANT SINGH Digitally signed by SUKHBANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd12 9a8a6380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2 B7D72C42261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH Date: 2025.08.14 17:06:18 +05'30'