SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. - (1.) On 7.6.1985 a lease was granted to the petitioner for the purposes of a playground. On 16.6.1985, permission was also granted for building of a school. On 7.10.1986, the respondents no.1, 2 and 3 filed an objection against the lease which was granted to the petitioner. In the proceedings for the cancellation of the lease ultimately the Board of Revenue on 12.2.1992 held that the lease was wrongly granted. Against the order dated 12.2.1992 a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 1592 of 1992 was filed by the petitioner. The Court on 20.7.2010, while disposing of the writ petition remanded the matter and directed the Subdivisional Officer to give findings on two issues: (I) Whether the predecessors in interest of respondents no.1 and 2 came under the category of persons aggrieved. (II) Whether the lease could at all be granted to the petitioner.
(2.) When the matter was decided by the Collector, it was held that the lease could have been granted by the Collector. On 3.7.2018, relying upon a decision reported in 2003 (95) RD 251 (Hina Siksha Niketan v. State of U.P. and others) it was held that the petitioner was entitled for any allotment under Section 198(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Regarding the other issue as to whether the predecessor in interest of the respondents no.1, 2 and 3 were aggrieved persons, it was held that they were not.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds challenging the order dated 3.7.2018.;