Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea Against UP Govt's 'Resumption' Notification Apropos Imambara Qadeem Property In Prayagraj

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the 2012 notification of the Uttar Pradesh Government resuming a piece of land [1500 square meters] in Village Manauri, District Prayagraj where currently a building known as Imambara Qadeem is situated.Essentially, the UP Government invoked its powers of resumption under Section 117(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 to take possession of the property in question. This was done for the Dedicated Freight Corridor project.It may be noted that as per sub-Section (6) of Section 117 of the 1950 Act, the State Government has the power to amend or cancel any declaration, notification or order made in respect of any of the things [including forests, trees, other than trees in a holding or on the boundary of a holding or in a grove or abadi', fisheries, hats, bazars and melas, tanks, ponds, private ferries, water channels, pathways, abadi site, etc] whether generally or in the case of any Gaon Sabha or other local authority and resume such thing.The case of the petitionerNow, before the High Court, the Committee of Management, Imambara [petitioner] contended that the property in dispute being a building and not any of the 'things' specified under Clauses (i) to (vi) of sub-Section (1) of Section 117 of the Act, and thus, the same cannot be held to have ever vested in the State, and by a declaration of the State, in the Gaon Sabha.Additionally, it was also submitted that the second petitioner and his forefathers have been in occupation of the property in dispute for the past 100 years and moreover, they constructed the building, where the Imambara is situated, also more than 100 years ago.In the circumstances, on the date of vesting, it was argued, that is to say, on 7th July, 1949, the Imambara being a building held by the second petitioner and his forefathers, it shall be deemed to have been settled with them by the State Government [as per Section 9 of 1950 Act] and thus, the same isn't amenable to the State's power of resumption now.Court's observations At the outset, the bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice J. J. Munir noted that the impugned notification of the UP government was issued in the year 2012, and the petitioner had failed to explain why they were challenging the said notification 10 years later.The Court discarded the argument of the petitioner that they had no knowledge about the existence of the impugned notification and only when the respondents filed a counter affidavit a writ petition, that they come to know about the state government's decision.Now, regarding the claim of the petitioners that the property in question was in existence on the date of vesting, that is to say, 7th July, 1949, the Court observed thus:"The benefit of Section 9 of the Act can be claimed only in respect of such buildings as were in existence on the date of vesting. A building, constructed later on, cannot be held to be settled with its owner, occupier etc...There is absolutely no evidence on record, by even as much as a hint, to show that the building that the petitioners claim to be a hundred years old Imambara was in existence on the date of vesting [7th July, 1949]. No doubt, there is an averment to that effect, but it is sans evidence. It is difficult, therefore, to accept the petitioners' contention that there was an Imambara or a building, by whatever name called, belonging to the petitioners in existence on the date of vesting that could be held to be settled with the petitioners under Section 9 of the Act."Consequently, finding no force in the plea, the same was dismissed. AppearancesFor petitioners: Mr. V.M. Zaidi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S.M.A. Iqbal Hasan, Advocate For respondents: Mr. Manish Goel, Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms. Akansha Sharma, Standing Counsel for respondent nos.2, 4, 5 and 6 and Mr. Pranjal Mehrotra, Advocate for respondents nos.1 and 3Case title - Committee of Management, Imambara Qadeem, Manauri, District Prayagraj through its Secretary and another v. Union of India and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 320Click Here To Read/Download Order

Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea Against UP Govt's 'Resumption' Notification Apropos Imambara Qadeem Property In Prayagraj

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags