- (1.) S. K. Singh, J. Heard Sri Kunwar R. C. Singh in support of this petition. No body appeared for the respondents.
(2.) CHALLENGE in this petition is the order passed by Board of Revenue, Additional Commissioner and that of the Additional Collector dated 24. 11. 1983, 10. 6. 1983 and 13. 1. 1982 (Annexures-XI, X and VIII) respectively. Before adverting to the arguments, notice of facts in brief, will suffice. Petitioner claims to have received a portion of Plot Nos. 729 and 731 situated in Agrawala Mandi Tateeri Tehsil Baghpat, District Meerut, in view of allotment made/ approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 28. 2. 1980 pursuant to which on 4. 9. 1980, he deposited Rs. 326. 80 and then he claims to have raised construction. For the aforesaid allotment, petitioner claims to have filed application on 27. 9. 1979 on the ground that he is residing at present in Tateeri Meerut and he has no land for his residence and therefore, he be allotted suitable area. On that application, Lekhpal, Supervisor Kanungo and Naib Tehsildar appears to have submitted their reports favouring petitioner and thus, approval of allotment by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 28. 2. 1980 as noted above. On filing application by respondent for cancellation of the allotment, on various grounds so taken in the application, the Additional Collector proceeded in the matter and after giving full opportunity to the petitioner, allotment was ordered to be cancelled by order dated 13. 1. 1982 and that has been affirmed by the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue and thus, all the three orders are under challenge in this petition.
(3.) SUBMISSION of learned counsel is that as the town area committee was under suspension, the prescribed authority was incharge of the affairs, he after getting report from lower staff allotted the land to the petitioner in which, no illegality can be found. SUBMISSION is that petitioner has been validly allotted the land being entitled for the same which is clear from the reports so submitted. It was then submitted that even if it is found that allotment in favour of petitioner is illegal, as the petitioner obtained possession and raised some construction, land is to be settled with him on market rate as has been held by this Court in the case of Sukhdeo v. Collector, 2007 (102) RD 83 : 2007 (5) AWC 5107 and Kishore Singh v. Addl. Collector, 2007 (102) RD 303. In view of the aforesaid, this Court has examined the matter. Before proceeding to deal with the matter, this Court has to observe that the case in hand is a clear case where the petitioner having taken into confidence the administrative authorities, has been able to grab public property/land in most illegal manner and now as alternate argument, he claims its legalisation/ settlement on payment of premium.;