- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. These two writ petitions raise similar questions, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) HEARD Sri Sunil Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. In view of the order, which is being passed in the writ petition, no notices have been issued to respondents No. 4 and 5. Writ Petition No. 13548 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the first writ petition) has been filed praying for quashing the order dated 30th April, 2007 passed by the Additional Collector holding that application under Section 198 (4) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 filed by respondent No. 4 is maintainable and the was fixed for hearing the parties on merits. Against the order dated 30th April, 2007 a revision was filed by the petitioners, which has been dismissed by the order dated 29th February, 2008.
(3.) IN Writ Petition No. 14110 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the second writ petition) petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 30th April, 2007 passed by the Additional Collector taking the view that applicants are eligible persons to maintain the proceedings under Section 198 (4) and the parties may address arguments on merits. A revision was filed against the said order, which has been dismissed by the order dated 29th February, 2008 by the Additional Commissioner. Brief facts of first writ petition are; the petitioners were granted agricultural lease by resolution dated 30th December, 1998 by the Land Management Committee, which was approved by Sub Divisional Officer on 22nd March, 1999. Respondents No. 4 and 5 filed an application for cancellation of the lease in favour of the petitioners under Section 198 (4) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The applications were presented before the Collector on 24th January, 2003, which was received by the Additional Collector on 27th January, 2003 by transfer. An order was passed for summoning the file and 21st February, 2003 was fixed for preliminary hearing. The order-sheet dated 26th February, 2003 notes that service of notice on respondents is sufficient. On 28th March, 2003 order-sheet notes that both the parties are present. Thereafter several dates were fixed in the case; on some dates both the parties were present and on some dates only applicants were present. On 27th August, 2004 both the parties were absent. The District Government Counsel was heard. The Additional Collector noticed that show cause notice has not been issued to the respondents. An order was passed on 27th August, 2004 for issuing show cause notice to the respondents and 9th September, 2004 was fixed. An objection was filed by the petitioners in which the respondents also raised a ground that application is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 198 (6) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. On 30th April, 2007 the Additional Collector heard the parties. The Additional Collector observed that the case was filed within time, same is maintainable and although there was delay in service of notice but that is not the responsibility of the applicants. A revision was filed. The revisional Court took the view that Additional Collector has only passed the order regarding issue of maintainability and the parties have opportunity to have their say on merits and the order of the trial Court being interlocutory in nature, no ground is made out to interfere with the order. The revision was dismissed. The first writ petition has been filed challenging both the orders.;