This is a brow raising case of a valid lease, granted in 2013, to one Rakesh and three others following a resolution by the Land Management Committee (subsequently approved on April 12, 2023), that was cancelled, solely on the basis of a private communication by an advocate, Sanjiv Kumar, practicing at Farrukhabad, who wrote a letter to the Deputy Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh in this regard.

The Allahabad High court has set aside the cancellation of the lease expressing “surprise” at the entire process that was initiated merely on the basis of a letter written by a practicing advocate to the Deputy Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh.

The single-judge bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, found that the revenue authorities acted in excess of their jurisdiction and failed to adhere to the procedural safeguards laid down in law.

Facts:

The letter, sent in 2018, prompted revenue officials to initiate cancellation proceedings under Section 128 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. This culminated in the revocation of the lease. The petitioners challenged the decision through a revision petition, which was partly allowed and the matter remanded for reconsideration.

However, upon reconsideration, the lease was again cancelled, and a second revision was dismissed, leaving the petitioners with no alternative but to approach the High Court.

The advocate appearing for the petitioners, argued that the letter from the advocate to the Deputy Chief Minister could not be treated as a valid application under Section 128 of the Code. He contended that the cancellation proceedings lacked legal foundation and due process.

The State, represented by a Standing Counsel, defended the actions of the revenue authorities and opposed the writ petition.

After examining the records and hearing the parties, the Court observed that no proper or valid proceedings had been initiated under the relevant statutory provisions. It held that the cancellation was effected without jurisdiction, and purely on the strength of a letter not envisaged under the Code.

Justice Agarwal noted that the revenue authorities had “transgressed their inherent powers” by cancelling a duly approved lease without following the mandatory legal procedure.

“From perusal of the orders impugned, I find that the said orders have been passed by the revenue authorities transgressing their inherent powers. No proper proceedings under Section 128 of the Code was initiated.” the court stated.

Expressing dismay, the Court stated that it was "surprised to know that how a valid lease granted in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled solely on the letter of an advocate addressed to the Deputy Chief Minister of the State."

Finding the cancellation orders dated October 20, 2024, and January 7, 2025, legally unsustainable, the Court quashed them and allowed the writ petition. The lease granted to the petitioners was ordered to be restored forthwith.

Case Details: Rakesh And 3 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others, WRIT - C No. - 4811 of 2025

Advocate for the Petitioner: Agnivesh,Jadu Nandan Yadav

Advocate for the Respondent: C.S.C.,Hari Narayan Singh