RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Manish Singh, for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kumar, Brief Holder, for Sate of U.P., for the respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders of Board of Revenue U.P. dated 26.08.1996, accepting reference and allowing revision of the petitioner and remanding the case to Sub -Divisional Officer to decide afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and 02.05.1997, rejecting the review application of the petitioner and order of Sub -Divisional Officer dated 25.02.2006, holding term of 'asami patta' of the petitioner has expired and the property was vested in State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha, under the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Chairman, Land Management Committee, for Rural Area of village Puranpur, tahsil Puranpur, district Pilibhit granted a patta dated 05.07.1977 of plot 789 (area 1.05 acre) and 810 -M (area 2.00 acre) of rural area of village Puranpur, tahsil Puranpur, district Pilibhit, conferring asami right, on the yearly rent of Rs. 25/ -. Both these plots were land of pond and recorded as such in the revenue record.
(3.) TAHSILDAR submitted two separate reports dated 25.06.1989 and 27.06.1989, stating therein that the petitioner was not paying rent of the patta as such patta be cancelled. Both the reports were accepted by Sub -Divisional Officer, by separate orders dated 30.06.1989 and 01.07.1989 respectively. The petitioner filed two revisions (registered as Revision No. 142/43/142 of 1991 and Revision No. 245/224/135 of 1989) from the aforesaid orders. Both the revisions were consolidated and heard by Commissioner, who by order dated 29.04.1993 held that order of Sub -Divisional Officer was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Same order has been passed again which shows non -application of mind. Sub -Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to cancel the patta. On these findings reference was submitted to Board of Revenue U.P. for allowing the revisions. Board of Revenue U.P. by the impugned order dated 26.08.1996, accepted reference and allowed revisions of the petitioner and remanded the case to Sub -Divisional Officer to decide the case afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a review application, which was rejected by Board of Revenue U.P. by order dated 02.05.1997. Hence this writ petition has been filed. This Court by interim order dated 18.02.1999 stayed dispossession of the petitioner from the land in dispute.;