Sign in

HC adjourns hearing in Jauhar University land lease case

Earlier this year, the state government cancelled a 3.24-acre land lease to Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar Trust, led by former UP minister Azam Khan, citing lease condition violations, alleging that originally it was allocated for a research institute but a school was running on the property. As per rules, after the cancellation of the lease, the possession of land automatically goes to the government.

Updated on: Dec 10, 2023, 06:42:16 IST
By
Share
Share via
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • linkedin
  • whatsapp
Copy link
  • copy link

PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad high court has fixed December 11 for hearing of a writ petition filed by Maulana Mohamad Ali Jauhar Trust challenging the Uttar Pradesh government’s decision to take over the land by cancelling the lease deed belonging to the Jauhar University in Rampur.

The writ petition was taken up by a division bench comprising acting chief justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and justice Kshitij Shailendra. (Pic for representation)
The writ petition was taken up by a division bench comprising acting chief justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and justice Kshitij Shailendra. (Pic for representation)

The writ petition was taken up by a division bench comprising acting chief justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and justice Kshitij Shailendra days after the apex court directed that the Trust’s plea be listed for “urgent admissions” before the bench presided over by the acting chief justice of the Allahabad high court.

Earlier this year, the state government cancelled a 3.24-acre land lease to Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar Trust, led by former UP minister Azam Khan, citing lease condition violations, alleging that originally it was allocated for a research institute but a school was running on the property. As per rules, after the cancellation of the lease, the possession of land automatically goes to the government.

During the course of hearing on Thursday, the advocate general placed before the court the original records relating to decisions taken by the cabinet and the executive authorities for settlement of the land in favour of the petitioner-trust.

The counsel for the petitioner stated that he would also like to look into the record to which the advocate general had no objection.

In this backdrop, the court permitted the counsel for petitioner to look into the original record in the presence of a state counsel and fixed December 11 for the next hearing.