- (1.) HEARD Sri S.N. Tiwari for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the order of Additional Commissioner dated 4.2.2014 by which the revision filed by Rampati and Nathoo against the order dated 28.1.1997 cancelling their patta has been allowed.
(3.) THE Land Management Committee granted patta to several persons of the village. Pradhan of the village filed an application (registered as Case No.109 of 1992 -93) for cancellation of patta on the ground that the resolution was wrongly passed in favour of several persons in which some of the persons were relations of Pradhan and some of the persons were relations of Lekhpal, who was Secretary of the Land Management Committee and no prior permission for allotment was taken from the Collector for allotment of patta to the relations of Pradhan as well as Secretary of the Land Management Committee. After notice being issued, the case was contested by the allottees. Before the Additional Collector on behalf of the complainant, Ram Ji and Badam Singh were examined and on behalf of allottees, Rajpal and Chandrapal were examined. The Collector after hearing the parties by the order dated 28.1.1997 held that Ajai Kumar, Jai Prakash belong to one family, Nanak Chand, Subhash Chand and Naresh Chand belong to one family, Chhatra Pal, Ram Rahees and Rajpal belong to one family, Ramesh and Som Vir belong to one family and Dropa and Ram Jeemal were not eligible for grant of patta. Rampati and Naththoo were sons of Badam Singh, Pradhan, who had land in three villages and Naththoo was minor as such no land could have been allotted to these persons. Ramwati wife of Om Prakash was resident of village Garhi, tehsil Bisauli and wife of cousin of Kushiram Lekhpal and son's wife of Badam Singh. Smt. Premwati was resident of Dhanipur and was the aunt of Lekhpal. Rampal son of Om Prakash was minor and was son of Ramwati wife of Om Prakash, and real grandson of Badam Singh Pradhan. Naththoo was son of Up -Pradhan Raghu. Ram Niwas and Pappoo were daughter's son of Pradhan Badam Singh and resident of village Garhi. Thus, the allotments were found to be irregular in favour of the aforesaid persons and patta of these persons have been cancelled. Against the aforesaid order two revisions were filed - one revision was filed by Rampati and Naththoo sons of Badam Singh and other revision was filed by the State of U.P. Both the revisions were heard and decided by the common order of Additional Commissioner dated 4.2.2014. The revision of Rampati and Naththoo was allowed and the revision of the State of U.P. was dismissed. The petitioners are not aggrieved by the order dated 4.2.2014 as such writ petition on their behalf challenging the aforesaid order is not maintainable. In the writ petition a second prayer has been made that mandamus be issued directing the State of U.P. to give opportunity for filing a fresh revision to the petitioners against the order dated 28.1.1997. It may be mentioned here that for challenging any order against any person no opportunity is required to be given by the State of U.P. or the opposite party in the case. If any order is against any party then it is his choice to challenge it or not. The petitioners in the writ petition have alleged that they jointly contested the case before the Additional Collector as such after the order of the Additional Collector they jointly engaged a counsel and instructed him to file a revision/reference but the counsel has committed fraud upon the petitioners and the revision was filed in the name of Rampati and Naththoo alone impleading the petitioners as opposite parties in the revision. The petitioners were illiterate persons as such they could not know that the revision was not filed on their behalf and it is only after passing of the order dated 4.2.2014 they came to know that revision was not filed on their behalf. On the allegation made in this respect no mandamus is required to be issued as the petitioners themselves can file a revision and satisfy the revisional court that fraud has been committed against them. However, this Court is not inclined to make any observation in this respect.;