Allahabad High Court 'Surprised' Over Lease Cancellation Based On Advocate's Letter To Dy. CM; Orders Quashed, Lease Restored

A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal quashed the lease cancellation orders and restored the lease in favour of the petitioners (Rakesh and three Others).

Briefly put, the petitioners contended that they were granted a lease in 2013 after a resolution to this effect was passed by the Land Management Committee. However, cancellation proceedings were initiated in 2018, purportedly after an advocate based in Farrukhabad sent a letter to the Deputy Chief Minister of the State.

The bench was apprised that, on the strength of the said letter, cancellation proceedings under Section 128 of the UP-Revenue Code 2006 were initiated, and the same were later decided against the petitioners, cancelling the lease.

A revision was preferred against the lease cancellation order, which was partly allowed, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration. However, after reconsideration, the lease was cancelled, after which a revision was filed and dismissed.

Challenging the lease cancellation orders, the counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the application had been moved before the Deputy CM and the same was not maintainable as it was not moved in accordance with Section 128 of the Code.

For context, S. 128 of the 2006 Code empowers the Collector to cancel the allotment and the lease after inquiring in the manner prescribed into any allotment if he is satisfied that the allotment is in contravention of the provisions of the Code.

Noting that no proper proceedings were initiated under Section 128 of the Code and merely on a letter addressed by a practitioner advocate to the Deputy Chief Minister of the State that proceedings for cancellation of lease were initiated and the lease was cancelled, the Court concluded that the revenue authorities had transgressed their inherent powers.

Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders dated January 7, 2025 and October 20, 2024, were quashed, and the lease granted in favour of the petitioners was restored forthwith.