A.P.SAHI,J. - (1.) THIS petition has been preferred in relation to the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') whereby the lease granted in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District Muzaffar Nagar vide order dated 05.11.2003 and the revision filed against the same by the petitioners has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 27.05.2006. After dismissal of the revision, it appears that the Gaon Sabha proceeded to make a fresh allotment in favour of the contesting respondents 5 to 9 and it is at that stage that the present writ petition was filed questioning the correctness of the Section 198(4) of the Act.
(2.) I have heard Shri S.A. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Shri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 to 9. None has appeared on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. Three issues were advanced by Shri S.A. Shah on 09.09.2009, which has been noticed in the order passed on that day. The first submission was that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has no authority to proceed in the matter. Shri Shah has conceded to this position that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had the authority at that point of time and consequently the second question raised by him that the revision should have not been heard by the Collector automatically does not survive. The revision was presented before the Commissioner, who sent it back to the Collector in view of the amendment which has been brought about in the Act and accordingly the Collector proceeded to decide the revision.
(3.) THE third point raised by Shri Shah was that the contesting respondent no. 5 to 9 had no right to move an application with regard to the cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the petitioners, copy whereof is annexure 1 to the writ petition. For this, Shri Shah contends that the said respondent nos. 5 to 9 do not fall within the definition of "aggrieved person" and therefore such an application was neither entertainable nor the Sub-Divisional Magistrate could have assumed the jurisdiction to proceed to cancel the lease of the petitioners under Section 198(4) of the Act. He contends that the initiation of the proceedings being invalid the entire action taken at the instance of the respondent nos. 5 to 9 is void. To support his submissions Shri Shah has invited the attention of the Court to the decision of our Court in the case of Pyare Lal and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mainpuri Camp at Etah and others reported in 2005 (98) RD 106. On the strength of the said decision Shri Shah has urged that the respondent nos. 5 to 9 being not aggrieved persons the proceedings have to fall through.;