S.R.Misra, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order of the Board of Revenue dated 5-2-1991 and 8-1-1982 passed by the Board of Revenue.
(2.) AFFIDAVITS have been exchanged in this case and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is disposed of finally at the admission stage. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioners claim themselves to be valid patta holders of the land lying in village Kontnalpur, Pargana Bidauli, Tehsil Kairana, District Muzaffarnagar, allotted to them by resolution dated 2-5-1979. Details of the aforesaid Pattas are narrated in paragraphs 2 to 11 of the writ petition. According to the petitioners, they were delivered possession over the plots allotted to them after approval by the Pargana Adhikari, Kairana and Amaldaramad was made in July 1979. Since then the petitioners are in possession over the disputed land. They also claim that all of them were allotted less then 3.125 stores of land. According to the petitioners, they are landless agricultural labourers and residents of village Konthalpur where the land in dispute is situated. They have no other lend except the land in dispute allotted to them by pattas. They also allege that on the basis of the aforesaid pattas, the petitioners have obtained Bank loan. During consolidation operation in the village Konthalpur, C. H. Form 45 has been prepared finaly recording the names of the petitioners over the land in dispute and they have also paid the costs of consolidation on 19-10-1985. But, thereafter, the Additional Collector, Muzaffarnagar cancelled the pattas, aforesaid, on the ground that the fathers of some of the petitioners had enough land and, therefore, the petitioners could not be treated to be landless agricultural labourers. It was also held that the petitioners were allotted more than 3.125 acres of land and that they were not the residents of the village. It was also observed thai no list of deserving candidates was prepared.
(3.) AGGRIEVED, the petitioners filed revision but the same was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner Meerut. The petitioners allege that their revision was dismissed mainly on the following three grounds :- (a) no Munadi was done within seven days, as required under the roles ; (b) father of the petitioners had enough land ; arid (c) the area was more than the prescribed limit. The petitioner felt aggrieved and they went in revision before the Board of Revenue but their revision also met the same fate as Board of Revenue dismissed the revision by its order dated 8-12-1982. Review petition filed by the petitioners was also dismissed on 5-2-1991 and hence this writ petition.;