- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. The petitioner claiming to be of Scheduled Caste and asserting that they were continuing to be in the occupation for a period of 15 years of plot No. 653 which vested in the Gaon Sabha, submitted an application on 26-12-1990 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, requesting that since the plot in dispute was in their occupation from before 30th June, 1985, their names be recorded as Bhumidhars with non- transferable rights under Section 122-B (4-F) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Act' ). This application was shown to be an application under Section 122-B (4- F) of the Act.
(2.) ON the basis of the aforesaid application, the Sub-Divisional Officer appears to have called for a report wherein the Lekhpal reported on 12-1-1991 that the plot in dispute was the property of the Gaon Sabha which was continuing to be in the occupation of the applicants for about 12 years. In his report the Lekhpal pointed but that five different sub-divisions of the plot were in occupation of the applicants separately. Lekhpal recommended for extending to the applicants benefits available under Section 122- B (4-F) of the Act and for the recording of their names as bhumidhars with non-transferable rights in respect of the different sub-divisions indicated in the report. The report was endorsed even by the Naib- Tehsildar on 16-9-1991 on the ground that the applicants were continuing to be in possession over the land in dispute for about 12 years and were eligible for the extension of the benefits to them, contemplated under the aforesaid provision. The Naib-Tehsildar further endorsed the report that the orders may be issued for recording the applicants as Bhumidhars with non-transferable rights over the different sub- divisions of plot No. 653 which were in their independent possession. The Sub-Divisional Officer vide the order dated 23-1-1991 accepting the. proposal, issued the direction as prayed for. The State of U. P. feeling aggrieved by the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer preferred a revision. The Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 24-9-1993 made a reference to the Board of Revenue for accepting the revision and setting aside me order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Additional Commissioner noticed that the Land Management Committee vide its resolution dated 11-11-1990 had resolved to allot the land in dispute to eligible persons other than the petitioners and the proposal contained in the resolution had been sent for approval of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar. It was further noticed that in the mean time, the application dated 26-12-1990 was filed by the applicants claiming to be Bhumidhars with non-transferable right and seeking an order that they be so recorded in the revenue re'cords. The Additional Commissioner on an appraisal of evidence on record came to the conclusion that the application in question and the recommendations of the Lekhpal made thereon were collusive and based on incorrect facts. It was also indicated that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was illegal and liable to be set aside. The Board of Revenue, respondent No. 1 held that the cryptic order, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer which was merely to the effect that 'accepted as proposed could not be deemed to be in accordance with law. The Board of Revenue also endorsed the view of the Additional Commissioner that the entire proceeding culminating in the order of the. Sub-Divisional Officer in question was collusive. The Board also expressed the view that there was no finding as to the exact duration of possession of the applicants and the Lekhpal had expressed total ignorance of the fact as to when the applicants had entered into possession of the land in dispute. The Board of Revenue accordingly accepted the reference and quashed the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved the petitioners have now approached this. Court by means of the present writ petition seeking redress, praying that the order passed by the Board of Revenue, respondent No. 1 as well as the order passed by the Additional Commissioner be quashed. I have heard Sri S. D. Pathak, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 as well as the learned Counsel representing the Gaon Sabha, respondent No. 3 and have perused the record.;