The Allahabad High Court has expressed its strong disapproval over a lease cancellation order that was issued solely on the basis of a letter written by an advocate to the Deputy Chief Minister. The Court described it as a matter of serious concern that a valid lease, originally granted after proper resolution, was cancelled merely due to such communication. In its verdict, the bench, led by Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, quashed the cancellation orders and directed restitution of the lease to the petitioners.
In 2013, the petitioners had been duly granted a lease following a decision taken by the relevant land management authority. However, in 2018, cancellation proceedings were initiated under Section 128 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, triggered not by any statutory violation but following an advocate’s letter to the Deputy Chief Minister. The letter purportedly influenced district administration officials to initiate cancellation without fulfilling required legal procedures. After these proceedings, the lease was cancelled, and subsequent revisions and reconsiderations upheld the cancellation.
The petitioners challenged these orders via writ petition, arguing that the foundational basis of cancellation—an unstructured letter to a political authority—clearly lacked standing under statutory provisions. Section 128 mandates that lease cancellation must follow an inquiry by the Collector when evidence shows contravention of code provisions. The Court agreed that there was no material on record to establish any statutory breach on part of the petitioners. Its decision to cancel the lease based merely on the letter was found legally untenable and arbitrary.
The high court underlined that cancellation of leases under such circumstances would erode public faith in institutional processes and open floodgates for political or personal influence to override legal procedures. It noted that proper statutory inquiry by competent authorities was entirely absent in this case, rendering the cancellation without jurisdiction.
Constitutionally, the Court emphasized that equitable writ jurisdiction should not be misused to penalize legitimate property holders on flimsy grounds. The lease had been executed in compliance with prescribed protocols and the petitioners had paid all dues. No evidence indicated misuse of the allotment or breach of covenant.
As a result, the High Court quashed all cancellation orders and restored the original lease. The ruling reaffirms the principle that administrative decisions affecting property and contract rights must be substantiated by legal authority and due procedure—not by extraneous political influence or informal complaints.
This judgment marks a significant reinforcement of legal norms governing property rights and administrative fairness. It serves as a strong precedent that adverse decisions such as lease cancellations must be justified by clear statutory grounds and conducted through the appropriate formal mechanisms. The Court’s ruling underscores that a mere letter—even from a legal professional addressed to a high-ranking official—cannot substitute for diligent and lawful administrative action.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.