AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners.
(2.) THE petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 contend that they are Schedule Caste and that the proceeding Suo Motu undertaken under Sub-section (4) of Section198 is impermissible inasmuch as earlier the proceeding which was initiated by a complainant had already been dropped against the petitioners. The submission is that the land was sought to be transferred in favour of petitioner No.3 after taking permission under Section 157-AA and it is at that stage that Suo Motu proceedings have again been initiated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revising authority has also not applied it's mind in the revision filed by the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
(3.) THE contention in short is that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner under Section 195 read with Section 198 (4) was in accordance with law and after due approval of the appropriate authority. The contention, therefore, is that such an allotment without there being any infirmity or irregularity could not have been proceeded through a Suo Motu proceeding barred by time.;