RAJAN ROY,J. - (1.) Heard.
(2.) Admittedly, the land in question was recorded as public utility land and no record to the contrary had been placed before this Court. In these circumstances, it appears that the land in question, could not have been allotted to the petitioner-educational institution in the first place itself, as the petitioner being a private educational institution is not covered by the provisions of Sections 198(1) and 195 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,1950(hereinafter referred to as the Act) under which such allotment of land in the Gaon Sabha is to be made to landless labourers, as per the preference given therein, and the petitioner did not fall in any of the preferential categories. In these circumstances, the notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 198(4) of the Act 1950 by the Tehsildar for filing his objections. This notice was issued on 20.6.2006. As per the documents contained at Page 63, a notice was sought to be served upon the petitioner, but, inspite of several efforts, the same was not received by officers of the petitioners' school and accordingly, endorsement was made in this regard on 23.6.2006. The impugned order had been passed by the S.D.M concerned on 25.6.2006.
(3.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is, firstly, that the authority competent to cancel the patta is Collector and not the S.D.M. The notice was never served. Moreover even if the endorsement dated 23.6.2006 is accepted the impugned order was passed by the S.D.M before the expiry of the period of three days, which was the time granted for filing objections. Consequently on this ground it is said that the impugned action is bad.;