Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) Heard Sri Indrasen Singh Tomar for the petitioners and Sri Shyam Lal Yadav for the contesting respondents 4 and 5. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Board of Revenue dated 3.6.2015 by which he has allowed the revision of respondents 4 and 5 and set aside the order of Collector dated 31.12.2013 dismissing the application of the respondents -4 and 5 for cancellation of patta under Sec. 198(4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951.
(2.) It is alleged that the patta of the land in dispute was granted to the petitioners in the year 1998. Respondents -4 and 5 filed an application under Sec. 198(4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 on 16.3.2013 for cancellation of patta. In the application it has been stated that there were several holdings of the petitioners and total area of the holdings held by the petitioners exceeds 1.125 hectare and they were not eligible for grant of patta but concealing the material fact the patta has been granted to the petitioners. In the case notices have been issued to the petitioners. The petitioners appeared and filed their reply. The preliminary objection has been made by the petitioners that patta was granted in the year 1998 while the application for cancellation of patta was filed on 16.3.2013 as such it is highly time barred. Under Sec. 198(6) of the Act, the limitation for initiation of the proceeding for cancellation of patta is provided five years only. Thereafter the matter was adjourned on several occasions. The Collector by the order dated 11.9.2013 granted time to the parties for adducing their evidence. Subsequently the matter was heard and the Collector by order dated 31.12.2013 found that the application for cancellation of patta is highly time barred. The respondents -4 and 5 are not aggrieved person as such the application on their behalf was not maintainable. The respondents in their application had not shown that they were coming in the eligible category preferable to the petitioners for allotment of land. No fraud or fabrication in the allotment of land was proved and the land was rightly allotted on the basis of eligibility criteria to the petitioners. On these findings he dismissed the application of respondents 4 and 5. Respondents -4 and 5 filed a revision against the aforesaid order before Board of Revenue. The revision was allowed by Board of Revenue by order dated 3.6.2015. The Board of Revenue found that the Collector has dismissed the application of respondents -4 and 5 without giving any opportunity of evidence to the respondents as such the order of Collector is illegal and liable to be set aside.
(3.) When the writ petition has been filed the respondents have filed caveat before this Court and they were granted time for filing counter affidavit. The counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit have been filed and the petitioners have also filed rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter -affidavit.;