The Allahabad High Court on Monday dismissed a writ petition filed by the Trust of the Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar University challenging the Uttar Pradesh government’s decision to seize its land in Rampur after cancelling the lease deed associated with the varsity.
The Uttar Pradesh government had cancelled the 3.24-acre land lease to Maulana Mohammed Ali Jauhar Trust, led by former UP minister Azam Khan, citing lease condition violations alleging that originally allocated for a research institute, a school was running on the property. As per the rules, after the cancellation of the lease, the possession of land automatically goes to the government.
The Division Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Kshitij Shailendra had earlier reserved its verdict after hearing both the parties in December 2023.
In its December 2023 verdict, the Apex Court had directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to keep the helpline for children of Rampur Public School operative till the end of the academic year 2023-24.
During the hearing in the case, the Advocate General had defended the cancellation of the lease without showcause notice on the grounds that public interest was of paramount consideration.
He argued that the land which was acquired for the purpose of higher learning (research institute) was being used to run the Rampur Public School.
Appearing for the state government, Advocate General Ajay Kumar Mishra defended the cancellation of the lease on grounds of blatant misuse of government land by former UP Minister Mohammad Azam Khan.
He alleged that Khan, while sitting as a cabinet minister, holding the portfolio of Minister of Minority Affairs, headed the Trust in the capacity of its Chairman, which was a conflict of interest.
Senior Advocate Amit Saxena, representing the Trust, alleged violation of principles of natural justice in the cancellation of the lease deed and sealing of the property by the UP government.
He said that no notice was served upon any member of the committee or the trust itself before action was taken against the Research Institute and that the report of the Special Investigation Team was never served upon the petitioner trust.
He further argued that had the petitioner varsity been confronted with the material which was relied upon to cancel the lease and seal the premises, it could have replied adequately.
However, in the absence of any material or evidence and lack of knowledge as to why the lease was being cancelled, the petitioner was not in a position to file a reply to the State, the Senior Advocate added.