PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - (1.) HIRA Lal and Phagu sons of Kanhai, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein along with Sukkhu son of Kalu etc. filed an application giving rise to ihe present writ petition under section 198 (4) of the U.KZ.A.&L.R. Act for cancella­tion of lease (Patta) granted in favour of the present petitioners dated 20th of May, 1970 on the ground that the said Patta has been granted illegally without following any procedure for allotment as prescribed un­der law. The cancellation proceeding was contested by the petitioners on the ground that the Patta dated 20th of May, 1970 in their favour is a registered document which was executed with prior permission dated 31st of March, 1970 granted by the S.D.M. as is evident from the Patta itself. The Patta was cancelled by the Additional Collector, Mirzapur by the order dated 19.9.1985 on the finding that the petitioners were not residents of the village in question. They were residing at the relevant point of time in District Allahabad. The said Patta is illegal as it was not verified by Tehsil and that no prior permission as was required, was taken from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
(2.) IN Revision No. 107 of 1985 filed by the present petitioner, the Additional Commissioner while disagreeing with the findings recorded by the Additional Collec­tor made a recommendation to the Board of Revenue for setting aside the order cancel­ling the Patta. The Board of Revenue by the impugned order has dismissed the refer­ence and has upheld the order passed by the Additional Collector. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Board of Revenue has committed illegality in holding that the petitioners were not re­siding at the relevant point of time in the village in question and they were residing, as a matter of fact, in District Allahabad. He further submits that the Patta was exe­cuted through a registered document and as such it could not be cancelled. From the said Patta itself it is evident that requisite prior permission from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was obtained.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the re­spondents, on the other hand, contends that it is a total case of fraud. Even the original Patta has not been filed and as such, the Patta was rightly cancelled.;