- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners.
(2.) BY this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 20. 12. 2007, passed by the revisional Court as well as the orders dated 4. 10. 2007 and 31. 5. 2000 passed by the Collector. The petitioners filed an application under Section 198 (4) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 praying for cancellation of a lease. The said application was dismissed for non- prosecution on 31. 5. 2000. The petitioners filed an application seeking recall of the order dated 31. 5. 2000 which was again dismissed in default on 7. 3. 2006. Again the petitioners moved an application seeking recall on 25. 7. 2007, which has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 4. 10. 2007. The petitioners filed a revision which has been dismissed vide order dated 20. 12. 2007. Learned Counsel for the petitioners challenging the impugned orders con tended that the Collector ought to have suo moto restored the application since the petitioner had challenged the allotment. It has further been contended that the Collector could not have dismissed the application for default and he was under an obligation to inquire and decide it on merit in view of the provisions of Section 198 (4) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
(3.) I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record. In so far as the first submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners is concerned, the Collector having not found the sufficient ground to recall the order, refused to recafl the order dated 3. 1. 5. 2007. The Collector has recorded finding in the order dated 4. 10. 2007 to the effect that the petitioners' earlier application was dismissed before the order dated 7. 3. 2006. After more than one year again an application was filed which was dismissed on 4. 10. 2007. No error has been com mitted by the Collector in rejecting the application dated 25. 7. 2007, which was filed after more than one year when earlier application was rejected. The revisional Court did not admit the revision having hot found merit in the case. The petitioners having not prosecuted their application, the Collector did not found good ground to recall the order. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has sought to submit that there was certain compromise due to which the petitioners did not pursue the matter. Be that as it may, the petitioners did not bonafide pursue their application hence, no error has been committed by the Collector in rejecting the application.;