Narayan Shukla, J. - (1.) Notices on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2 have been accepted by learned Standing Counsel and notice on behalf of opposite party No.3 has been accepted by Mr. R.N. Gupta, learned Advocate. Mr.Anil Kumar Rajvanshi, learned Advocate put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No.4 by filing his 'Vakalatnama', the same is taken on record.
(2.) The petitioners are aggrieved with the order dated 30th of June, 2005 passed by the Additional Collector, Hardoi, whereby the allotment of land i.e. Gata No.420 measuring area 0.838 in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled as also the order dated 24th of December, 2009, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow in revision, whereby the order passed by the Additional Collector has been upheld.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Pankaj Gupta submits that the lease was granted to the petitioners with the permission of the Additional District Magistrate under Section 28(c) of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R.Act, therefore, being the daughter-in-law of the Gram Pradhan there is no ground for cancellation of lease as such type of lease is permitted under the Act with the permission of the Additional Collector. He further submits that finding of the Additional Collector that they have landed property therefore, they do not come under the category of eligible candidates for grant of this lease, is also wrong, as the petitioners being major resides separately from his family and they have no land separately in their names. Accordingly he challenges the findings of the authorities concerned.;