A.N.VARMA, J. - (1.) One Bhanu Pratap Pandey preferred an application under Section 122C(6) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter to be referred as an 'Act'), for cancellation of allotment in respect of plot which was said to have been allotted to the petitioner by the Gaon Sabha for building of house, on the ground that such allotment was irregular and against the rules as the petitioner was not entitled for such allotment as he was not a resident of the concerned village and was a retired employee of Railways and his two sons and a daughter -in -law were gainfully employed. The Collector on the basis of material which was before him, vide order dated 28.2.2006, came to the conclusion that Bhanu Pratap was not a person aggrieved so as to move an application under Section 122C(6) of the Act, for cancellation of allotment in respect of plot in question. He, however, by the same order, of his own motion directed the notices to be issued to the petitioner. It is against the said order, issuing notices to the petitioner that the petitioner is aggrieved and has approached this Court through the present petition for setting aside the same.
(2.) I have heard Shri J. K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri R. N. Gupta, who has put in appearance on behalf of the concerned Gaon Sabha, i.e., opposite party No. 3. Shri Sinha vehemently argued that once the Collector having come to the conclusion on the basis of material before him that Bhanu Pratap, the applicant, having been found not to be an aggrieved person within the meaning as defined under Section 12C(6) of the Act, the proceedings ought to have been dropped. The Collector had no jurisdiction to issue notice of his own motion on the ground that the proceedings for allotment were irregular as the material which was taken into account for coming to the conclusion that said Bhanu Pratap was not a person aggrieved, on the very same material it could not have been said that the allotment was irregular. His argument further is that the petitioner being a Schedule Caste he was entitled for allotment of plot for building purposes as referred to under Section 122C(3) of the Act. As per his submissions, whether economic conditions of the petitioner as well as his family members were at all relevant for coming to the conclusion that allotment in his favour was irregular. According to him it was also absolutely immaterial for the purpose, as to whether or not his sons and daughter -in -law were gainfully employed.
(3.) SHRI R. N. Gupta, in opposition argued that since only notices have been issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 122C(6) therefore, the petition at this Juncture is premature. According to him nothing in the provision bars the Collector from issuing notices under Section 122C(6) for the purposes of inquiring into regularity of allotment. As per his argument there is no illegality or infirmity in the Impugned order, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.;