- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by persons claiming themselves to be valid allottees of the land in dispute in proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. The petitioners claim that they were allotted land in accordance with law and as such any complaints entertained were without any basis. They also allege that the cancellation has come up after almost 18 years of the allotment as such the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 2 deserves to be quashed.
(2.) SRI Dixit learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent no. 3 was the sole complainant whose complaint was not based on any material evidence and therefore the cancellation order was without any justification. SRI Dixit further submits that findings have been recorded only in relation to some of the petitioners whereas the majority of the allottees had also filed their objections which have been dismissed on a general consideration without there being any evidence in that regard. He therefore contends that the order dated 19th June, 2009 be quashed and the allotments in favour of the petitioners be restored. It appears from the record that the respondent Dharam Singh along with one Naresh filed an objection, copy where of is Annexure 2, complaining that the allotments were in violation of the procedure prescribed in law, particularly, with regard to the procedure of advertisement (Munadi) and the preparation of the list of eligible persons in accordance with the scheme provided under Section 198 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. On this complaint the matter was proceeded with, and simultaneously after cancellation of the allotment, fresh allotments were made in the year 1993 to 18 persons. The said allotments were cancelled and a list was redrawn and 18 persons were allotted land afresh. The petitioners who were the first round of allottees were aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated 23.4.1993 and they filed writ petition No. 19351 of 1993 which was ultimately allowed on 6.11.2008 and the Commissioner was directed to decide the matter again. The judgment is Annexure 7 to the writ petition.
(3.) IN the aforesaid background the first contention of the petitioners that the allotment has been cancelled after 18 years is against facts, inasmuch as, the cancellation had already been undertaken in the year 1993 and the petitioners had filed the aforesaid writ petition whereafter the matter was remanded back to the learned Additional Commissioner to decide the matter afresh. IN view of this, it cannot be said that the application entertained for cancellation of the allotment of the petitioners was barred by time. On the merits of the claim after the matter was remitted by the High court, objections were filed and the petitioners also filed their defence. The same was examined and the first finding recorded by the learned Additional Commissioner is that the procedure for carrying out the Munadi (advertisement by beat of drums) was not followed and therefore there was no evidence on record to indicate that such a procedure was ever adopted.;