- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
(2.) LAND Management Committee Sauthena, Tehsil and Pargana Bharthana, District Etawah resolved to allot different parcels of its land to about 60 persons including the petitioner on 27.8.2004. Petitioner was allotted part of plot no.1086. (learned counsel for the petitioner states that the date of resolution has wrongly been mentioned as 27.8.1994 in para 3 of the writ petition). S.D.O. Bharthana through order dated 8.4.2005 approved the entire resolution. However, one Sri Pravin Sadan who was ex member of parliament made a complaint that the portion which had been allotted to the petitioner was not vacant. The name of the petitioner was at serial no.50 in the allotment resolution. On the said complaint the S.D.O. withdrew the approval through order dated 9.5.2005 only in respect of petitioner and one more allottee. Prior to that report of the Naib Tehsildar had been obtained which is dated 7.5.2005 and copy of the same is Annexure I. Naib Tehsildar only mentioned that the portion allotted to the petitioner was not vacant. In the impugned order dated 9.5.2005 the only ground mentioned for withdrawing/reviewing the approval is that the plot was not vacant. One more reason which is given is that Sri Pravin Sadan Ex-MP would also feel satisfied and would not have any grievance. Even this much is not mentioned either in the report of Naib Tehsildar or the order dated 9.5.2005 that who was in illegal occupation of the part of the plot which was allotted to the petitioner.
(3.) IF some one was in illegal occupation, the unauthorised occupant should have been dispossessed in stead of withdrawing the approval. Against the order dated 9.5.2005 petitioner filed revision no.129 of 2005 which was dismissed on 24.5.2006 by Additional Commissioner Kanpur Division Kanpur. The Additional Commissioner also held that the order challenged before him was not judicial order.;