MUKTESHWAR PRASAD,J. - (1.) WE have heard Sri Harihar Prasad Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents on merits.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5 -7 -1984, passed by the then Collector, Fatehpur (Annexure 1 to the writ petition), mainly on the ground that neither valid notice was issued to the petitioner nor opportunity of hearing was given to him as required by Sub -section (3) of Section 15 -A of the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Moreover, there was no material before the Collector for cancelling the grant made in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was landless and grant was made in accordance with law and rules as existed on the date of grant. It was also contended that no counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent and as such the averments made in the petition have to be accepted. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order dated 5 - 7 -1984 passed by the Collector in exercise of its power under Section 15 -A of the Act. Admittedly no counter -affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents. The Collector after having a report from the Tehsildar on an application moved by the D.G.C. (Revenue) on behalf of the Gaon Sabha Umaraudi, Kalyanpur, initiated proceedings for cancellation of the grant made in favour of the petitioner in respect of plots No. 488 and 486. Admittedly the Consolidation Authorities dismissed the objection field by the Pradhan of the village and Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dismissed the appeal also filed by the respondent No. 2. However, learned Collector found that grant could not be made in favour of the petitioner as he had sufficient land on the date of grant. It is not clear from the impugned judgment that on the basis of what material/evidence the Collector concluded that the petitioner was not landless on the date of grant. It appears that grant in favour of the petitioner was made before 1972 and proceedings for cancellation of the grant were initiated in 1982. What irregularities or misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner was committed is no clear from perusal of the judgment in question. We are, therefore, of the opinion that respondent No. 1 did not apply his judicial mind in canceling the grant made in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, the order dated 5 -7 -1984 is liable to be quashed.
(3.) SO far writ petition No. 11863 of 1984 is concerned, petitioner Smt. Purna Devi W/o Sri Rama Nand has challenged the order dated 5 -7 -1984 passed by the Collector, Fatehpur (Annexure 3 to the writ petition), mainly on the ground that no notice was served upon the petitioner and Smt. Ram Rati and there was no material for initiating the proceedings. Moreover, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and the impugned order was passed violating the principle of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that no notice was served on the petitioner. A notice was issued to the original grantee Smt. Ram Rati, which was not valid. Our attention was drawn to the copy of the notice (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). No counter - affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents. The grant in respect of several plots was made in favour of Smt. Ram Rati in the year 1969 and she was put in possession. As provided under Section 15 of U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952, grant of plots was made in accordance with scheme of Bhoodan Yagna Act. A perusal of copy of the notice sent to Smt. Ram Rati shows that the grant was made in her favour not in accordance with rules.;