- (1.) HEARD Sri Jitendra Kumar for the petitioner.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the order of the Additional Collector dated 19.7.2012 cancelling patta of the petitioner and order of Additional Commissioner dated 16.1.2014 dismissing the revision of the petitioner.
(3.) PLOT no.416 was the land of pond and plot no.555 was the land reserved for manure pit during consolidation, were allotted to the petitioner by the Land Management Committee on 9.10.1995. On the report of Sub Divisional Officer dated 18.6.1998, the Collector took cognizance and initiated proceeding under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 for cancellation of the patta of the petitioner. On the notice being issued, the petitioner contested the case. One of the grounds, which was taken by the petitioner, was that under Section 198(6) of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 limitation of five years has been prescribed as such the proceeding cannot be initiated for cancelling of patta of the petitioner as the five years period had already been expired. The Additional Collector by order dated 19.7.2012 found that as the land of manure pit and pond was allotted to the petitioner as such allotment of this land to the petitioner was illegal. In such circumstances he has held that limitation prescribed under Section 198(6) of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 was not for suo motu action and as such by the order dated 19.7.2012 the patta granted to the petitioner has been cancelled. The petitioner filed a revision against the aforesaid order which has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner by order dated 16.1.2014.Hence, this writ petition has been filed. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the land falling within the category of Section 132 of U.P. Act NO.1 of 1951 can also be allotted in view of the provision of Section 197 of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 as such allotment of the land in dispute was not illegal. He submits that U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 prescribes the period of limitation as five years under Section 198(6)(b) and there is no separate limitation for suo motu action and from the wordings of sub -section (6) of Section 198 that every notice to show cause is required to be within the limitation period as such the view taken by the Additional Collector that in suo motu action limitation will not apply is not correct. The limitation has already expired and no proceeding can be initiated against the petitioner and the impugned orders are illegal and without jurisdiction.;