- (1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. An allotment order was passed in favour of one Satyendra Vir Singh on 9-11-84. Application for cancelling the said allot ment order was moved by the contesting respondents. The prescribed Authority cancelled the allotment order passed in favour of Satyendra Vir Singh. An application and revision was filed against the order of cancella tion of the allotment order dated 9-11-84 by the present petitioner Mohan Lal. The revision petition was dismissed by the 1st Addl. District Judge on the ground of non- maintainability. This writ petition by Mohan Lal, petitioner is against the said order.
(2.) THE perusal of the judgment of the court below shows that the accommodation in question was originally allotted in the name of Shri Niwas Vasistha on 3-1-78, who had dispossessed the landlady, Smt. Pustipa Kumari and had occupied the premises on the basis of the allotment order. A revision application was filed against the allotment in favour of Shri Niwas Vasistha who succeeded in lingering the proceedings in the revision for a pretty long time and lastly by order dated 14-9-90 the allotment order in his favour was set aside. Smt. Pushpa Kumari, the landlady died during the pendency of revision and her heirs were substituted as parties. The heirs of Smt. Pushpa Kumari landlady sold the property in question to the contesting respondent Nos. 3 to 6. By an application dated 4-5-91 Mohan Lal petitioner had filed an objection to the application filed by the opposite party Nos. 3 to 6 for delivery of possession through police in their favour. In objection filed by Mohan Lal, the petitioner claimed himself to be the owner of the property in question. A Civil Suit No. 790 of 1978 was filed in the Court to Munsif, Agra in which an application was submitted in which it was stated that in a portion of the accommodation in question, one Rajendra Prasad and in the other portion Satyendra Vir Singh, the allotment order was passed treating Mohan Lal as owner of the property. It was also claimed that rent was. , paid to Mohan Lal by said Satyendra Vir Singh. The right and title of Smt. Pushpa Kumari or her heirs as owner of the property was denied. In the said pro ceedings, an application was moved on 15-10-91 by Satyendra Vir Singh claiming himself to be in possession of the accommodation and he had filed certain copies of the rent deed and receipts before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority mentioned in the inspection note dated 13-4-77 also the fact that the accommodation was allotted in favour of Shri Niwas Vasistha on 3-1-78. This allotment in favour of Shri Niwas Vasistha was challenged by Smt. Pushpa Kumari on the ground that he is wholly illegal and unauthorised occupant. It was found by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that before the allotment in the name of Shri Niwas Vasistha, Smt. Pushpa Kumari was in possession of the property in question which was already released in her favour. In the revision filed by Smt. Pushpa Kumari, Shri Niwas Vasistha had opposed the revision and thereafter illegally transfer red the possession to some one. Admittedly, Shri Niwas Vasistha in his application for allotment had mentioned the name of Smt. Pushpa Kumari as recorded owner of the property. The R. C. & E. O. in his judgment mentioned that there was no justification for Satyendra Vir Singh to have taken over possession during the pendency of the revision. The findings shows that Shri Niwas Vasistha and Mohan Lal petitioner and Satyendra Vir Singh had colluded and concealed the correct facts and orders was obtained by con cealing the correct facts. Thus, the order of allotment dated 9-11-94 was cancelled.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the order of cancellation of the allotment in the name of Satyendra Vir Singh was never challenged by Satya Vir Singh, who was the person effected by recalling of the allotment order. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ravi Kiran Jain submitted that the order dated 2-9-93 dismissing the revision as not maintainable was patently illegal and unwarranted. He submitted that the said order was passed under Section 16 (v) of the. U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. He further submitted that such an order is reviseable under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act. He submitted that the order impugned was wrongly labelled as interlocutory order. It was urged that the adjudication about the legality and validity of the allotment order dated 9-11-84 by the impugned order is the final adjudication in the matter and cannot be said that it was an interlocutory order.;