- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) BY this writ petition petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 4. 8. 2006 passed by Additional Collector directing for cancellation of lease granted to the petitioner as well as the order dated 26. 12. 2006 passed by Additional Commissioner dismissing the revision. The petitioner was granted lease by the approval of the Assistant Collector dated 14th August, 1991 alongwith several other persons. A report was submitted by Sub Divisional Officer, Modinagar dated 4th April, 2006 to the effect that by order dated 16th March, 1995 the land was allotted for agricultural purposes whereas the land which has been allotted is a land of river and is for public utility within the meaning of Section 132 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 which could not be recorded. The recommendation was made for can celling the lease. A case was registered and suo-moto exercise of power notices were issued to the petitioner. An objection was filed by the petitioner to the effect that the land was allotted by the Land Management Committee for agricultural purposes and it has wrongly been recorded as river in C. H. form No. 45 and it should be corrected as bhumidhari. It has further been stated that the name of petitioner was recorded as Asankramaniya bhumidhar and the petitioner is in possession. The Additional Collector took a view that the land is a land within the meaning of Section 132 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', and the same could not have been allotted and the allotment is cancelled. The revisional Court affirmed the order. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, challenging the order, contends that the petitioner is Asami of the land within the meaning of Section 132 of the Act and he has right to retain possession of the land as provided under Sections 133 and 146 of the Act. He submits that even though the entry of Asankramarriya bhumidhar is there in the record in the name of petitioner but the petitioner is entitled to con tinue in possession. He further contends that the lease was not liable to be cancelled even if the land is recorded as river.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner himself has filed the extract of revenue entry of Kisan Bahi which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, which clearly indicates that petitioner is recorded as lease holder as Asankramaniya bhumidhar of the land in dispute. The petitioner in the objection has also claimed that he having allotted the land by the Land Management Committee, her name as Asankramaniya bhumidhar has rightly been recorded. It has been stated that in the consolidation record the land is still shown as river whereas said word 'river' ought to have been corrected when the lease was granted to the petitioner.;