Allahabad High Court Issues Notice To Advocate General On A Plea Challenging UP Govt's Nazul Land Ordinance

The Ordinance under challenge provides that any Nazul land shall not be converted into freehold in favour of any private persons or private entities after the commencement of the Ordinance. Further, all applications for declaring the Nazul land freehold shall stand rejected after the commencement of the Ordinance.

Challenging the Ordinance, counsel for petitioners contended that there was no need for promulgation of the Ordinance. The Ordinance was brought about “barely a few days from the end of the last session of the Legislative Assembly” without any existence of any urgency.

It may be noted that Clause 3(1) of the Ordinance provides that “Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court to the contrary” Nazul land in the State of Uttar Pradesh will not be converted into freehold properties.

Further, Clause 3(3) provides that all proceedings or applications pending in any Court or before any authority seeking conversion of Nazul Land as freehold shall be deemed to be lapsed/ rejected. It is further provided that any money deposited with such applications shall be returned with interest.

Counsel for petitioners argued that these clauses of the Ordinance have the effect of nullifying judicial pronouncements already made, including decrees and orders which provided/ protected the freehold rights of citizens. It also wipes out all pending applications for freehold which were made under pre-existing Government Policy.

It was argued that “Since, the Ordinance does not intend or attempt to cure any defect noticed, but to override the law declared by the Court, the action taken is wholly impermissible.”

Further, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Allahabad High Court had issued a positive general mandamus in 2019 directing the State Government to decide the pending application for freehold in the case of Dr. Ashok Tahiliani Vs. State of U.P. and others and Amarnath Bhargava Vs. State of U.P. and others.

“Instead of giving effect to those directions and in absence of any stay order operating against those decisions, the pending applications have now been declared abated,” it was argued.

It was urged that Petitioners' application for freehold has been pending since 1999 whereas the nearby plots had been converted to freehold.

Upon written instructions, the Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh submitted that presently the State Government does not intend to take any coercive measures against the petitioner, including eviction and demolition.

The Court observed that the Additional District Magistrate in his letter dated 21.03.2024 has stated that no coercive action will be taken in pursuance of the Ordinance. Any action which will be taken will be in accordance with law and as per Government orders.

Accordingly, the bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Surendra Singh-I directed that notice be issued to the Advocate General and has granted time to the parties to exchange affidavits.

Meanwhile, the Court has directed that “no coercive measures may be adopted against the petitioners, except with leave of the Court.”

Counsel for Petitioners: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Advocate assisted by Advocate Tarun Agarwal.

Case title - Hemant Gupta And 2 Others vs. State Of Up And 3 Others

Click Here To Read/Download Order