Sub-lessees lack enforceable rights to harvest standing crops after the State lawfully resumes land possession.

The petitioners, two private companies, sought a writ of Mandamus to harvest a standing sugarcane crop on 483.2 acres of land in "Prag Farm," Udham Singh Nagar

The land was originally leased in 1933 to Prag Narain Agarwal for 99 years

Following the abolition of thekedari rights and extensive litigation involving the original lessee’s heirs, the State took physical possession of the farm in August 2025

The petitioners claimed possessory rights through registered lease deeds executed in 2008 by Manoj Narain Agarwal, one of the successors

Although the State resumed possession due to lease cancellation, the petitioners argued they should be permitted to harvest the standing crop to avoid wastage, citing interim directions issued by the Supreme Court in related proceedings involving other stakeholders of the same farm

1. Whether the petitioners possess a legally enforceable right to re-enter land and harvest crops after the State has lawfully resumed physical possession

2. Whether the interim orders passed by the Supreme Court in favor of other stakeholders in related litigations automatically extend to the petitioners

3. Whether a writ of Mandamus can be issued in the absence of an established legal right and a corresponding statutory duty

The Court primarily addressed the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the issuance of a writ of Mandamus

It applied the principle that a Mandamus cannot be issued unless the petitioner establishes a clear legal right and a corresponding legal duty cast upon the respondents

The Court further applied the doctrine of derivative rights, holding that a sub-lessee’s rights cannot exceed those of the lessor; since the rights of the successors (the lessors) were conclusively determined against them in prior litigation (2014 and 2025), the petitioners held no independent standing

The Court also referenced the U.P. Government Estates Thekedari Abolition Act, 1958, under which the State resumed the land

The Court reasoned that the petitioners failed to challenge the legality of the State’s repossession in August 2025, meaning the State's possession is established and lawful

It observed that the petitioners’ claim was purely derivative of Manoj Narain Agarwal’s rights, which had already been extinguished by prior judicial decisions

The Court held that mere sowing of crops prior to eviction does not create a right to re-enter land once possession vests in the State; granting such "permissive entry" would improperly recognize a claim that is legally unsustainable

Regarding the Supreme Court's interim order, the Court noted it was passed for specific parties under specific conditions (e.g., depositing 50% of proceeds), which the petitioners were not party to nor offered to comply with

The Court emphasized that equitable considerations cannot override settled law or create rights where none exist under writ jurisdiction

The Court concluded that the petitioners could not use writ jurisdiction to achieve "through the backdoor" what their lessors failed to achieve in substantive litigation

No order as to costs was made