Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) A Residential/Housing patta was granted to the petitioners under Section 122-C of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950,(hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act') after the approval of the Collector on 24.9.1999. The respondent no. 6 filed an application under Rule 115-P of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules') for the cancellation of the patta on various grounds. The first ground was that in between the complainants agricultural plot and the road, the plot in question namely plot no. 220 was used for the ingress and egress of the complainant respondent no. 6. The second ground in the complaint of the respondent no. 6 was that plot no. 220 was contiguous to the National Highway and, therefore, no house could be built over it, as it would violate the Road Side Control Act. The third ground in the complaint was that the petitioners were not eligible to get the plot in question and that when the allotment had taken place, the list of eligible candidates, which was prepared, contained only the names of the petitioners and of no other villagers. The fourth ground of the complaint was that the petitioners/allottees were mother and son and they were the family of the Pradhan and, therefore, any allotment in their favour, ought to have been preceded by a permission under Section 28 C of the Panchayat Raj Act. The petitioners were put to notice and, thereafter, the patta, in favour of the petitioners was cancelled vide order dated 29.09.2005. The petitioners filed a writ petition which was numbered as Writ Petition No. 41346 of 2005. This writ petition was allowed on 15.1.2013 and, thereafter, the Special Appeal filed by the respondent no. 6 was allowed whereby the judgement and order of the learned Singe Judge dated 15.1.2013 was set aside and the petitioners were directed to file a Revision before the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court heard the matter and decided the Revision against the petitioners on 26.4.2018 necessitating the filing of this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions:- I. The allotment of plot no. 220 in favour of the petitioners did not, in any manner, hamper the ingress and egress of the respondent no. 6 from her plot no. 227 as plot no. 220 was of two biswas and three dhoors and allotment was made of only two biswas and, therefore, three dhoors still remained for being used by the respondent no. 6. Further, the neighbouring plot no. 219 and 221 were also vacant which could be used by respondent no. 6 for her ingress and egress and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination it could be said that the respondent no. 6 was an "aggrieved person". II. The petitioners' counsel submitted that if the plot no. 220 was covered by the Road Control Act and no house could be constructed over it then it could not be said that the allotment itself was erroneous. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if, in any manner, the construction of the house would be hampered then the petitioners should be allotted an alternative land where they could build their houses. III. The petitioners' counsel submitted that even though it was argued tooth and nail by the respondent no. 6 before the Revisional Court that a proper list of eligible candidates was not prepared and even though the Revisional Court summoned a report regarding the fact as to whether the list of eligible candidate was properly prepared but nowhere either in the complaint or in the report or for that matter in the Revisional Court's order has it been stated that there was any other eligible candidate who could have found entry in the list of eligible candidates. IV. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even though the learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 has relied upon a judgement rendered on 19.11.2013 in Writ Petition No. 63050 of 2013 which only states that a permission had to be taken before the acquisition of a lease but it does not say anything as to whether the relatives of the Pradhan had to take a permission or not. Learned counsel submits that in this regard, the decisions reported in (State vs. Pran Shankar etc.,1981 2 RevDec 65), (Smt. Vidyawati vs. Gaon Sabha, 1982 RevDec 216), (Ram Nandan and anthers vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors, 1983 RevDec 139) and (Govind and others vs. Sub Divisional Officer, Machchlishahar, District - Jaunpur and Ors,1986 RevDec 137) were absolutely clear that allotment in favour of the relatives of the Pradhan was not to be preceded by a permission, as is contemplated under Section 28 C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. V. Further learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the Special Appellate Court had quashed the order of the High Court dated 15.1.2013 on 11.8.2017 and had directed the petitioners to approach the Revisional Court then it had allowed the Appeal only on the issue as to whether a permission was essential before the grant of the lease under Section 28-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
(2.) In reply, learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the complainant was an aggrieved person and the Road Control Act did prohibit the construction of building over the plot in question and that a permission was essential under Section 28-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and still further, the list as was prepared of the eligible candidates was also wrongly so done.
(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the Revisional Court wrongly decided the matter. Firstly, since the respondent no. 6 had absolutely no truck with the land in question and definitely there were other plots available for her ingress and egress she was not an aggrieved person. Secondly, the allotment could not be nullified on the basis of the fact that the Road Side Control Act in any manner prohibited building activity. I am in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that if after the allotment it was found that the Road Side Control Act prohibited construction activity then the petitioners should be given plots in the alternative for building their houses. In view of the judgements cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am also of the view that there was no requirement of any permission under Section 28-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. So far as the decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondents which is reported in (Sangeeta vs. State, 2013 121 RevDec 850) is concerned, even though it states that permission was necessarily to be taken before the acquisition of a lease but, it does not specify as to whether it was a condition precedent for only the Pradhan, the members of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti or was it also mandatory even for the family members of the Pradhan. Further, I am also of the view that when no one had brought to the fore any other name which could have found entry in the list of eligible candidates then definitely it could not be said that list of eligible candidates which contained only the names of the petitioners as eligible was faulty in any manner.;