- (1.) I. M. Quddusi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel.
(2.) LAND in question was given on lease by resolution of land management com mittee to the petitioner in the year 1973. In the year 1990 Lekhpal recommended for cancellation of patta on the ground that the land in question has been sold out to some person for construction of house. The proceedings was held for cancellation of lease before the Additional Collector and a case was registered as case No. 91/95-96 under Section 198 (4) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and LAND Reforms Act. The patta was cancelled vide order dated 20th May, 1997 on the ground that there was a report of Lekhpal that the land was sold out. There was denial of the petitioner but no finding has been recorded in respect of fact whether there is sale-deed and posses sion of other persons over the land in question. Statement of one Sri Rakesh Chandra Srivastava appeared on behalf of the petitioner as P. W.-l shows that no con struction of any house has been raised over the land in question. Considering the facts and cir cumstances of the case, I come to the conclusion that the order is not supported by any evidence and has been passed on the basis of suspicion which cannot be sus tained. In the result, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order dated 20-5-1997 passed by Additional Collector, Farrukhabad in case No. 91/95-96 State v. Sanman Singh, as well as order passed in Revision No. 84/90 by Commissioner dated 6-9-1997 are quashed. It will, how ever, open for the Collector to pass a fresh order after recording evidence and giving his findings in accordance with law after providing opportunity to the parties con cerned. Petition allowed. .;