- (1.) HEARD Sri Anupam Kulshrestha, for the petitioner, Standing Counsel, for State of U.P., Sri R.C Upadhyaya, Standing Counsel, for Gram Panchayat and Sri S.C. Verma and Sri S.M. Mishra, for respondent -7.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders of Chief Revenue Officer, dated 18.07.2008, dismissing the application of the petitioner for cancellation of patta dated 15.10.1991, granted by Land Management Committee to respondents -4 to 10 (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) for house sites, of plot 1016 (area 152 links) of village Mohammadpur, pargana Sagadi, district Azamgarh and Board of Revenue U.P. dated 21.10.2013, allowing revision of the respondents and setting aside the order of Additional Commissioner dated 22.01.2010 and order dated 21.02.2014, rejecting the review application of the petitioner, arising out of proceeding under Rule 115 -P U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).
(3.) PLOT 1016 (area 276 links) of village Mohammadpur, pargana Sagadi, district Azamgarh was recorded as 'naveen parti'. Land Management Committee (respondent -3) allotted an area of 152 links of plot 1016 to the respondents (two respondents were allotted an area of 31 links each and three were allotted 30 links each) through resolution as confirmed by order of Sub -Divisional Officer dated 15.10.1991 according to the provisions of Rule 115 -M. It may be mentioned that 78 links of plot 1016 was in illegal occupation of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application dated 30.03.2013 (registered as Case No. 2/4) under Rule 115 -P for cancellation of the pattas of the respondents. The petitioner stated in his application that he was in occupation of plot 1016, in which he had constructions of kachcha house and two pakka rooms, since before 50 years. He has also constructed a temple of Hanumanji, a hut and installed hand -pipe and also planted several trees in it. Land Management Committee earlier initiated a proceeding under Rule 115 -C of the Rules, against him, which was later on dropped due to old possession of the petitioner. The land in dispute was not vacant on the spot as such its allotment to the respondents was illegal.;