Anil Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri M.A. Siddiqui, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel who put in appearance on behalf of respondents.
(2.) SRI M.A. Siddiqui, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy which is involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 15.07.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 4804(MS) of 2008 (Committee of Management and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors.) disposed of with the following directions: Considered the submissions made by the parties' Counsel and perused the record. Section 123 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act provides that the site of such house shall be held by owner of the house on the terms and conditions as may be prescribed and terms and conditions as prescribed reads as under: 115 -R (2) (a) - The allottee as well as his heirs shall have a heritable interest in the land or site so allotted: (b) the allottee and his heirs shall not be liable to eject; (c) the succession shall be governed by the personal law of which the allottee was subject; and even as per Clause (d) the allottee is entitled to mortgage. Even the allottee can transfer the land, site or house after 10 years as per Clause (1) of Rule 115, the restriction is only for a period of 10 years: (1) Where any land or site is allotted in accordance with Rule 115 -L to 115 -Q and house is built thereon, then, subject to the provisions of sub -rule (2), the allottee shall have no right to transfer such land, site or house within a period of ten years from the date of allotment. On perusal of the aforesaid Rules, it is abundantly clear that the allottee and his heirs shall not be liable to eject and even the even allottee can transfer the land, site or house after 10 years as per Clause (1) of Rule 115. In the instant case, non -inclusion of the petitioner's institution in the list of grant -in -aid is per se bad and against the decision of the opposite parties themselves. As regards the building to be owned by the institution, the petitioner's institution is very much owner of the building and the site with transferable and heritable right, the building having been raised some time in 1980 and as per Rule 115 the embargo against the alienation having also come to an end, now the petitioner owns the building and the land with heritable and transferable right. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to re -consider the case of the petitioner, ignoring the fact that the building of the institution has been constructed or erected belonging to the Gram Panchayat and in light of the stipulations provided in the Government Orders issued from time to time. Let the exercise be completed within a maximum period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Sri M.A. Siddiqui, learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits and requests that the representation dated 21.07.2010 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) may kindly be considered and decided by the concerned authority in view of the judgment dated 15.07.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 4804(MS) of 2008 (Committee of Management and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors.).
(3.) SRI S.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has no objection to the above said prayer.;