PANKAJ BHATIA,J. - (1.) Heard Shri Dheeraj Singh Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, Shri Ajay Rai, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Shri Surendra Pratap Singh, Shri Ram Jee Saxena and Shri Sudhakar Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Shri Prashant Kumar Lal, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
(2.) Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 12.11.2003 and 8.7.2009 passed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively, whereby, the land, which was recorded as public utility land (Rasta) has been allotted to the petitioner and the challenge to the said allotment has resulted into passing of the order dated 12.11.2003 and affirmed by the order dated 8.7.2009.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in the Khatauni and records property No.302 is recorded as a public way and is a public utility land, the record of Khatuani is on record as Annexure No.1 to the petition, which clearly proves that the land bearing Khasra No.302 is recorded as a public way. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the proposal dated 29.10.1998 was moved for allotment of a part of the land bearing Khasra No.302 ad-measuring 0.506 Hectare which is under cultivation of the respondent No.4 and an acceptance was granted for allotting the same in favour of the respondent No.4. On the said proposal dated 29.10.1998 the S.D.M. passed an order on 30.10.1998 holding that as the property bearing No.302 is recorded as Rasta in the land records, as such, same cannot be allotted to any person in public interest and consequently, rejected the proposal dated 24.2.1995 for allotting the same in favour of respondent No.4, said order is on record as Annexure No.3 to the petition. After passing of the said order a letter was written by an M.L.A. in the State of U.P. recommending that the lease be executed in favour of respondent No.4 as the respondent No.4 had contributed in the family planning efforts, the said letter is on record as Annexure No.4 to the petition. Subsequently, vide separate proposal dated 31.12.1998 by the Lekhpal a request was made for changing the land use of the part of the property bearing Khasra No.302 ad-measuring 0.506 hectares, which was to be allotted to the respondent No.4. The said proposal of the Lekhpal dated 31.12.1998 was endorsed and recommended by the Revenue Inspector, whereby it was recommended that land use of a part of the property bearing Khasra No.302 be amended in the revenue records. Based upon the said two recommendations of the Lekhpal and the Revenue Inspector, an order dated 6.1.1999 was passed wherein it was recorded that in terms of the proposal dated 24.2.1995 allotment was accepted in favour of the respondent No.4 and the initial exparte order dated 30.10.1998 was recalled and after reviewing the same the allotment made in favour of respondent No.4 was accepted. There is nothing on record to demonstrate as to whether the land use was changed in the record or not, the order dated 6.1.1999 only accepted the proposal of allotment in favour of respondent No.4 made on 24.2.1995.;