Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Gaurav Kakkar for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Additional Collector dated 30.9.2013 by which the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner regarding maintainability of the application under section 198(4) of UP Act No. 1 of 1951 has been rejected and the order of Additional Commissioner dated 9.6.2014 dismissing the revision of the petitioner against the aforesaid order.
(2.) ONE Hoti Lal Sharma, (respondents), filed an application for cancellation of patta dated 24.8.2012 granted to the petitioner. The petitioner has raised a preliminary objection in the application regarding maintainability of the application on the ground that Hoti Lal Sharma was not an aggrieved person and has no locus standi to file an application under section 198(4) of the Act. The Additional Collector has rejected the preliminary objection of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 30.9.2013 and held that a perusal of the application as well as the other materials it is proved that Hoti Lal Sharma has been in possession over the land in dispute for a long time in such circumstances, he can be treated as a person aggrieved and application filed by him is maintainable under section 198(4) of the Act. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in the revision which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner by order dated 9.6.2014 holding that the impugned order was an interlocutory order and revision was not maintainable. Hence this writ petition has been filed. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that Hoti Lal Sharma was an unauthorised occupant of the land in dispute accordingly proceeding under section 122 -B of UP Act No. 1 of 1951 was initiated against Hoti Lal Sharma. Hoti Lal Sharma challenged the order passed under section 122 -B in Writ C No. 15170 of 1999 before the Court which was disposed of by order dated 24.1.2014 directing the respondent authorities to make inquiry and directing the Collector Bulandshahar to make spot inspection and in case it is found that Hoti Lal Sharma was in physical possession then he may pass suitable order in this respect. He submits that in pursuance of the aforesaid order of this Court spot inspection was made by Additional Collector on 20.7.2013 on the spot and Hoti Lal Sharma in his statement had admitted that he was having about 28 bighas of land in his name accordingly Hoti Lal Sharma was not an eligible person for grant of patta. The Additional Collector has rejected the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner without considering the fart that Hoti Lal Sharma was having 28 bighas of land and was not landless person therefore he was not able to grant patta and his application for cancellation of patta was not maintainable. He submits that even then Hoti Lal Sharma was asami of the land in dispute, maximum period of asami was five years and after expiry of five years Hoti Lal Sharma has no right to maintain his possession over the land in dispute. In such circumstances, he was merely unauthorised occupant and application filed by him for cancellation of patta was not maintainable as held by this Court in Raja Ram and others v. Smt. Son Kali and others, : 2009 (107) RD 796 and Kanhai v. State of UP and others,, 2012 (116) RD 127. He submits that the application was not maintainable however the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner has been illegally rejected by the Additional Collector only on the ground that Hoti Lal Sharma was in possession over the land in dispute for the long period and the revision filed by the petitioner has been illegally dismissed. I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. A perusal of the application filed by Hoti Lal Sharma shows that Hoti Lal Sharma claims that he was granted sirdari patta of the land in dispute by the Land Management Committee in the year 1974 and since then he has been in possession over the land in dispute. Admittedly, in the inquiry conducted by the Additional Commissioner possession of Hoti Lal Sharma was found on the spot. If. the case take up by Hoti Lal Sharma that he was granted sirdari patta in the year 1974 is correct then the land in dispute was not vacant on the spot and Land Management Committee was not entitled to grant patta of this land to any other person and Hoti Lal Sharma being sirdar can protect his right and also filed an application under section 198(4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. On the allegation made by Hoti Lal Sharma his possession cannot be said to be illegal occupation over the land in dispute. In such circumstances, the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner was rightly rejected by the Additional Collector. No interference is required by this Court and the matter is still to be decided on merit where the petitioner can readdress his grievances. The writ petition is dismissed.;