Devi Prasad Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties' counsel.
(2.) PETITIONER was allotted land on lease in pursuance to provision contained in U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952 (in short hereinafter referred as Act). Section 14 of the Act deals with the grant of lease to landless person. For convenience Sub -section 4 of Section 14, which provides necessary condition for grant of lease to the landless person, is reproduced as under: (4) in making grant of land under this section, the committee or other authority or persons as aforesaid or the collector, as the case may be, shall observe the following principles. (a) At least fifty per cent of the land available for grant shall be granted to persons belonging to the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and persons belonging to the Kol, Pathari, Khairwar, Baiga, Dharikar, Panika and Gond Tribes and such other tribes as the State Government on the recommendation of the committee may notify in this behalf, (b) The land situate in one village shall, as far as possible be granted to persons residing in that very village. Explanation -For the purpose of this section, the expression 'landless agricultural labourer" means a person whose main source of livelihood is agricultural labour or cultivation and who at the relevant time either holds no land or holds lands not exceeding 0.40468564 hectares (one acre) in Uttar Pradesh as a bhumidhar, 4(***) asami or government leasee. In pursuance to aforesaid provision the petitioner was granted lease of the land in question in village Hansnagar, Pargana Palia, Tehsil Nighasan District Kheri. The Bhudan Yagna Samiti had taken suo moto action and submit a report before the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri for cancellation of lease in pursuance to Section 15 of the Act on the ground that the petitioner does not belong to said village. While moving the application for grant of lease of the land as landless person the petitioner had indicated that they belong to village namely Hansnagar pargan palia Tehsil Nighasan District Kheri. A notice was sent to petitioners but they didn't turn up, hence, by impugned order dated 23.9.1988 application was allowed and lease was cancelled. Thereafter, petitioner had moved an application for restoration of case on the ground that no notice was served. After perusal of record the Additional Collector by the impugned order dated 23.9.1988 had rejected the application on the ground that the notice was duly served. Feeling aggrieved the present writ petition has been preferred.
(3.) IT has been vehemently argued by Shri Hari Om Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner that Additional District Magistrate was not competent to pass the impugned order. It has also been submitted that no notice was served on the petitioner and he belongs to same village.;