Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, for the petitioners, Standing Counsel, for State of U.P. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Additional Collector, dated 25.10.1994, cancelling pattas of the petitioners, Additional Commissioner dated 21.6.1996 and Board of Revenue, U.P. dated 28.10.2014, dismissing the revisions of the petitioners, against the aforesaid order, in proceeding under section 198(4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, Ram Sanehi, Muluwa and Durja (petitioners -1, 2 and 4) belong to "other backward classes" and Jageshwar belongs to "general category" and they were landless agricultural labourers. Land Management Committee of village Chamraha allotted land to every landless person belonging to "scheduled caste" in the year 1987. Even thereafter Tjanjar and naveen parti' in the village remained, as such Land Management Committee passed a resolution for allotment of the land to eligible candidates belonging to "Other Backward Classes" and "general category". However Sub -Divisional Officer, by order dated 8.1.2008, refused to grant approval. Land Management Committee again passed another resolution on 22.2.1988 for allotment of the land, which was approved by Sub -Divisional Officer on 17.10.1989. Rikhnath (now represented by respondents -5 and 6) filed an application (registered as Case No. 360) under section 198 (4) of the Act before the Collector, for cancellation of the pattas of the petitioners, on 28.11.1989. On the notice being served, the petitioners filed their joint objection on 14.5.1990, denying the allegations made in the application. It has been stated by the petitioners that Land -Management Committee after circulating due notice of the agenda for allotment of the land, conducted meeting and passed resolution for allotting the land to the petitioners and one Dripal. Sub -Divisional Officer after being satisfied with the legality of the resolution, granted approval on 17.10.1989. Land Management Committee has not committed any illegality in allotting the land to the petitioners. Rikhnath was having large holdings and belonged to "general category", he was not an aggrieved person and the application for cancellation of patta filed by him was not maintainable. The pleas regarding limitation and jurisdiction were also raised.
(3.) THE case was tried by Additional Collector, who summoned the record relating to the allotment of the land. Additional Collector, by order dated 25.10.1994 held that various eligible persons of the village were not granted patta, while the petitioners were not eligible for grant of patta. Naib Tahsildar and Tahsildar also recommended for not granting approval through their letters dated 19.5.1988 and 21.9.1988 but ignoring these letters, approval was granted. On these findings, pattas of the petitioners were cancelled. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 18/42 of 1994 -95) from the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Additional Commissioner, who by order dated 21.6.1996, held that some of the allottees were falling within the ambit of section 28 -C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 but no permission was obtained from the Collector for allotment of the land. Allotted land, which was used for 'khalihan' was also allotted. Father of Ram Sanehi was member in Land Management Committee and also participated in passing the alleged resolution. Allottees were not eligible persons. On these findings the revision was dismissed. The petitioners filed a second revision before Board of Revenue, U.P. Member, Board of Revenue, U.P. found that on disapproval of earlier resolution on 8.1.1988, the fresh resolution dated 22.2.1988 was passed without circulating fresh notice of the agenda for allotment of the land to the same persons without framing eligibility list in preferential category. On these findings, revision was dismissed by Board of Revenue, U.P., by order dated 28.10.2014. Hence this writ petition has been filed.;