High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Sarla Vaish & Another v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Deptt. Of Housing & Another - WRIT - C No. 9386 of 2003  RD-AH 5161 (22 March 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.9386 of 2003
Smt. Sarla Vaish & Anr.
State of U.P. & Ors.
Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.12.2002 (Annex.1) and further direct the respondents to issue demand notice to the petitioners for conversion of the nazul land into freehold.
The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the lease on the nazul land was issued on 13.03.1912 in respect of land in dispute in favour of one Shri Robert Car for a period of 50 years, which expired on 13th March, 1962. The application for renewal was filed and the authority under the Statute agreed to renew the lease for further period of 30 years, however, the lease deed had never been executed. The petitioners claim that they entered into an agreement to sell in respect of the said land with the said lessee on 28.02.1986 and entered into the possession of the said land. They applied for conversion of the said land which has been rejected by the impugned order. Hence the present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that after having registered agreement to sell, the petitioners had been put in possession and were entitled for getting the land in dispute converted into freehold.
The agreement to sell dated 28.02.1986 has been placed on record according to which the possession was to be handed over to the present petitioners only after execution of the registered sale deed. Therefore, the very basis that the petitioners are in possession of the land is in contravention of the term of the registered agreement to sell and admittedly no sale deed has yet been executed. The District Collector, while rejecting the application of the petitioners for conversion, vide impugned order has specifically recorded a finding of fact that after expiry of the lease in favour of the original lessee on 14.03.1962, the renewal deed has not been executed. The application for conversion can be filed by a lessee, his assignees, legal heirs and persons having registered agreement to sell with them. An ex-lessee can also apply for conversion in his own favour. In the instant case, the lease expired on 14.03.1962 and the petitioners right of agreement to sell on 28.02.1986. There is nothing on record to show that the finding of fact recorded by the District Collector that renewal deed had never been executed is incorrect. Therefore, it is difficult for us to hold that the petitioners being the parties, who had entered into a registered agreement to sell with the former lessee, could make an application for conversion. The Government Order dated 01.12.1998 provides that a person who had entered into an agreement to sell with the lessee can apply. Here the case is that the lease deed has never been executed. At the most, the original lessee, of its own, can be held to be an ex-lessee.
Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out the category of eligible class of persons under which the petitioners could make an application. We do not find any fault with the impugned order. The petition is totally misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.