- (1.) The facts giving rise to this writ petition lies in a narrow campus. A resolution was passed by the Land Management Committee village Kaseru, Tehsil Gabhana, district Aligarh on 27.2.1993 proposing to allot and lease out the land in dispute as bhumidhari with non-transferable rights in favour of the petitioners. The said resolution was approved by the competent authority vide order dated 18.4.1993 and the names of petitioners were recorded in revenue records. A complaint was made after about 15 years on 11.2.2008 that the aforesaid allotment is irregular and as such is liable to be cancelled. On the said complaint. Case No. 57 under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was registered. Petitioners submitted an application/objection dated 18.8.2008 alleging that complaint is patently barred by time and cannot be entertained. However, ignoring the application/objection of the petitioners dated 18.8.2008 notice dated 16.7.2009 was issued to them to show cause why the allotment made in their favour be not cancelled. Petitioners preferred a revision against the order of issuance of the said notice before the Board of Revenue and the same was decided on 1.9.2009 with the observation that the question of limitation as raised vide application dated 18.8.2008 be decided in accordance with law before proceeding on merits. Accordingly, the issue of limitation was considered vide order dated 16.11.2009 and the Collector without actually deciding the same directed for suo motu action for cancellation of the allotment/lease of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the aforesaid direction a revision was preferred by the petitioners which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 24.12.2009.
(2.) The order of the Collector dated 16.11.2009 for initiating suo motu action for cancellation of the allotment/lease of the petitioners and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 24.12.2009 dismissing the revision have been assailed in this writ petition.
(3.) I have heard Sri S.N. Pandey, learned Counsel for petitioners, learned standing counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Sri D.D. Chauhan who has appeared for respondent No. 3 and with their consent proceed to decide the writ petition on merits at this stage itself.;