SIDDHARTHA VARMA,J. - (1.) The petitioners were granted pattas on 11.6.1996 and they were also approved by the Collector on 16.6.1996. However, on the complaint of some political leaders, the collector issued notices to the petitioners and initiated proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Notices were issued on 18.3.1997. Replies were submitted by the petitioners on 21.6.1999. A report was called for by the Assistant Collector to whom the Collector had transferred the case, which was submitted by the Naib-tehsildar. Thereafter, the Additional Collector on 27.5.2002 cancelled the patta of the petitioners, who filed a revision which was also dismissed on 31.8.2006. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the political leaders who had made the complaints against the pattas of the petitioners were not "aggrieved persons" under the Act. He further submitted that the Tehsildar was not entitled to give a report and the Collector himself ought to have enquired into the matter. In the end the petitioners submitted that the impugned order which was passed by the Additional Collector and not by the Collector could not have been passed by the Additional Collector as the Collector alone was required to pass the order.
(3.) In reply, the learned Standing Counsel supported the impugned orders and submitted that it mattered little that who made the complaint. He also submitted that the Tehsildar was definitely entitled to submit the report as was asked for by the Assistant Collector. Furthermore, he submits that the Additional Collector could also cancel the patta and therefore he cancelled them.;