- (1.) RAN Vijai Singh, J. This writ pe tition has been filed against the order dated 31. 3. 2008 passed by Additional Commis sioner (Judicial), Moradabad Division, Moradabad in Revision No. 59/07-08, Triloki Singh v. State of U. P. and others.
(2.) IT appears that the Assami Patta was granted to the petitioner's father and after his death, the petitioner has been in possession over the land in dispute. How ever, aforesaid patta was cancelled on 20. 1. 2000 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner's father. Against that, a Revision was preferred which was allowed on 6. 3. 2007 on the ground that the order dated 20. 1. 2000 was passed in breach of principle of natural justice. It appears after the order for re mand was passed, the petitioners father died and patta of the petitioner's father has been cancelled. Aggrieved from the said order, a recall application was filed on the grounds that the petitioner was not living in the village, therefore, the was not aware of the aforesaid proceeding. The said recall application was rejected on 25. 6. 2007. Thereafter the petitioner has preferred Revision No. 59/07-08, Triloki Singh v. State of U. P. challenging the order of cancellation of Patta dated 6. 3. 2007 and order dated 25. 6. 2007. Heard Shri Neeraj Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and learned Counsel for Gaon Sabha. With the consent of the Counsel for the parties the writ peti tion is taken up for final disposal.
(3.) IT has not been disputed by the parties that the Patta in favour of peti tioner's father was granted in the year 1964 and the present entry has been cancelled in the year 2000 and again in Revision the matter was remanded for deciding case after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, during the pen dency, the father of the petitioner has died and since petitioner has not been living in the village, therefore, matter neither could be contested no any evidence could be adduced. Learned Standing Counsel appear ing for the State respondent could not dis pute this fact that the impugned order dated 6. 3. 2007 has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The matter is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Hari Ram v. Gaon Sabha and another, 2004 (97) RD 360. decision of this Court in Ram Deo v. State, 2008 (105) RD 283 in which the Court has made following observation: "from the above said discussions, it is held that rights of assami can be extinguished by determination of the lease under Rule 176-A (2 ). It is further found that after determina tion of the lease there is no neces sity of filing a suit under section 202 of the Act for ejectment of the assami and the possession of the assami can be taken by Land Man agement Committee in accordance with the Rules from the com mencement of agricultural year following the date of the order. It is further held that before determina tion of the lease under sub-rule (2) of Rule 176-A, a notice is required to be given by the Assistant Collec tor to the lessee. ";