Sanjay Misra, J. - (1.) List has been revised .No-one has appeared on behalf of the petitioners. Sri V.K.Ojha, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ramji Srivastava learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 4 and 5 is present. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that he has filed counter affidavit as back as in the year 1998 but no rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner till date and the matter is pending before this Court wherein interim order of status quo dated 2.3.1998 is operating.
(2.) The averments as made in the writ petition indicate that it is the case of the petitioner that on 15.1.1998 ,a patta was allotted to the respondents no.4 and 5 and it was duly approved by an order dated 6.5.1998. It is alleged that the petitioner moved an application for cancellation of the said patta under Section 122-C (6) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on the ground that the disputed plot is his Sirdari and he has been in possession over the same since before 1985. The Chief Revenue Officer rejected the said application of the petitioner on 9.12.1997 where after the petitioner had filed review application before the same authority which was also rejected by the order dated 9.1.1998. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner which was also rejected on 27.1.1998 on the ground of maintainability. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that no Munadi was done before the patta was allotted to the respondents and further that one of the allottee namely Shiv Prasad was a minor on the date of the said Patta. Apart from claiming possession over the said plot prior to the date of allotment, the petitioner has stated that he has planted trees and constructed his hut thereon. It is also eaded that the respondents did not come under the priority list for the /purpose of allotment of such patta. On the aforesaid pleadings it has been stated that the order of the Additional Commissioner impugned in this writ petition is arbitrary and against the law . Since the Munadi was not done and the respondents were not in the priority list therefore, the said allotment is liable to be set aside.
(3.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents no.4 and 5 it has been stated that all the procedure as prescribed by law were followed prior to allotment of the patta in their favour. It has also been stated that respondents have been put in possession over the land in dispute. The averments made by the petitioner that allottee was minor at the time of allotment has also been controverted and that the respondents were within the priority list as prescribed. It has been stated that the petitioners belong to Gaund communityt and as such are not in purview of Schedule caste category. The respondents further state that the documents filed by the petitioner pertaining to the respondents age and possession of petitioners as shown in Misil Band Register are forged and fake. The respondents have filed certificate of Gram Pradhan relating to their possession;