JITENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) In view of the facts and circumstances, submissions as made and the relief as is being claimed in this petition, it appears that no useful purpose will be served by keeping this petition pending and thus after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel, this petition is being finally disposed of.

(3.) Challenge before this Court is the order dated 2.9.1998 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation which was found to be farzi and has been ordered to be cancelled. The petitioner moved an application for getting copy of that order which was also not given. Petitioner appears to have approached the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr by filing an application, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition by which the petitioner has prayed that he was allotted the land and he was in possession but the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, without giving an opportunity, has cancelled the amaldaramad which stood in favour of the petitioner.