Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) After the petitioners were allotted Pattas on 7.9.1975 and their names were recorded on 12.10.1975 in the revenue records and when almost after ten years, on the applications of the Pradhan, their names were deleted on 31.1.1987, they filed a revision, which was dismissed on 22.10.1988 by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Gorakhpur Mandal. Aggrieved thereof they filed a Revision before the Board of Revenue at Lucknow which again dismissed the same on 5.9.1990. The review petition was also dismissed on 19.4.2000. Hence this writ petition.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners essentially submitted : (I) Under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 the Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to delete the names of the petitioners from the revenue records after holding that the pattas on the basis of which the petitioners were entered were Farzi and that too without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. (II) There is a whole procedure prescribed for the cancellation of a patta under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 and that till it is valid no Authority could declare a patta Farzi or invalid under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. (III) Against the patta dated 7.9.1975 an application under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was filed by one Ram Awadh but the same was dismissed on 21.11.1981. The revision filed against the order dated 21.11.1981 was also dismissed. (IV) The Pradhan had also filed an application against the petitioners under Section 198(4) on 25.6.1986. However, the case as was instituted by the Pradhan was also on the directions of the ADM, Basti dropped on 19.2.1987. (V) In a civil suit being Suit No.79 of 1987 which was filed by the petitioners for the relief of permanent injunction issue no.1 was with regard to the validity of the patta and it was held therein that the petitioners were having valid pattas by a judgment and decree dated 8.3.1991. (VI) As has been held in the case of (Simlesh Kumar vs. Gaon Sabha, Uskar Ghazipur and others, 1977 AIR(All) 360) a patta can be cancelled only by the procedure prescribed by the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and this procedure could not be circumvented. It had to be followed in the manner it had been provided. No shortcuts could be taken recourse to. Reference was made to (Prof. Ramesh Chandra vs. State of U.P. And others, 2007 4 ESC 2339) and in (Dhanauti (D) through L.Rs. and others vs. Additional Commissioner (E-II), Varanasi and others, 2012 5 AWC 4690) and was argued that authorities under the Land Revenue Act, could under no circumstances cancel a patta. (VII) It was further argued that even if it is alleged that an entry is forged then the same cannot be cancelled under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. (VIII) Proviso to Section 39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act states that the Collector is not empowered to decide a dispute involving a question of title and thus the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that till such time the patta was not cancelled, the entries on the basis of it could not be doubted.
(3.) In the end, learned counsel pointed out to the paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit wherein it had been stated that the Nayab Tehsildar himself had admitted that in the old allotment register received from the Tehsil and also in the report of the Nayab Tehsildar relating to village-Bardand, the land had been mentioned in the name of Ram Ashrey.;