- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) Sri Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are unsustainable in law, inasmuch as, primarily the petitioner was not given any opportunity prior to the passing of the order dated 11th February, 2009 whereby the judgment and order dated 30.9.1983 was set aside. He submits that the matter was restored on the very same day and the judgment in favour of the petitioner dated 30.9.1983 was set aside without any notice. Learned counsel submits that this violation therefore was sufficient to set aside the order dated 11.2.2009 and neither the Commissioner nor the Board of Revenue have taken care to advert to this aspect of the matter.
(3.) Sri Pandey submits that the impugned orders do not take notice of a valid judgment in favour of the petitioner in proceedings that were initiated at the instance of the petitioner under Section 122-B (4-F) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 whereby the petitioner had acquired rights and the same could not have been taken away in the manner in which it has been done in the present proceedings. Learned counsel submits that the Sub Divisional Magistrate in the order dated 30.9.1983 had categorically recorded that the land in question was an old fallow land over which the petitioner had acquired rights.;