Vivek Kumar Birla, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Mahesh Narain Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4.
(2.) Present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 18.9.2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Mandal, Meerut in Case No. 01615/2018 under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as well as to stay the order dated 18.8.2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Modinagar, district Ghaziabad in Case No. 6/2010-11 under Section 122B (4F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act filed as Annexures 5 and 7 respectively to the writ petition. A further prayer in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent authorities not to interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioner over Khasara no. 358 situated in Village Rori Pargana Jalalabad Tehsil Modinagar district Ghaziabad has also been made.
(3.) Petitioner filed Case No. 6 of 2010-11 under Section 122-B (4F) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 claiming benefit of Sub-section (4F) of Khasra no. 358 Rakba 0.885 Hectare out of 0.404 Hectare that he is in possession for more than 20 years and as such being a member of scheduled caste he is entitled for the benefit of Section 122-B (4F) of the Act. Reliance was placed by the petitioner on an order dated 29.11.1997 whereby notice 49Ka was issued against the petitioner under Section 122-B of the Act was dropped. The petitioner has also filed a copy of the order dated 17.9.2003 passed under Section 198 (4) of the Act, Rohtas Vs. Rajendra and others whereby proposal for allotment dated 20.9.1997 of the aforesaid Arazi in favour of some other person was dropped. The benefit under Section 122-B(4F) of the Act was rejected by the impugned order dated 18.8.2017 on the ground that the petitioner has filed only photo copies of aforesaid orders which are not admissible and even otherwise he has failed to produce any evidence to prove his possession, which is stated to be 20-25 years old. The revision filed against the same was also dismissed.;