Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) Heard the learned standing counsel for the State respondents.
(2.) The allotment was made in favour of the petitioner in the year 1965. Cancellation proceedings were initiated and the allotment was cancelled. Subsequently the petitioner filed a suit for declaration. The Trial Court decreed the claim of the petitioner vide judgment and order dated 20.6.1972. Against the same an appeal was filed by the State. Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit, on the ground that the allotment had not been validly made as certain procedural irregularities had been noticed. The revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. As such present petition was filed by the petitioner for quashing the orders of the Additional Commissioner and Board of Revenue and for restoring the order passed by the Trial Court decreeing the suit.
(3.) At the time when the writ petition was admitted vide order dated 12.3.1981, an interim protection was also provided to the petitioner that he would not be dispossessed, if not already dispossessed. In the counter affidavit filed by the Land Management Committee, it is not alleged that the petitioner had been dispossessed prior to passing of the interim order. As such petitioner has continued in possession over the land in dispute since 1965. Further cancellation of the allotment on procedural irregularities at such a belated stage would be doing injustice to the petitioner as he had been cultivating the land right from the year 1965 i.e. almost for the last 45 years. No party had come forward alleging that it had a preferential claim for allotment over and above the petitioner. I also find from the perusal of the judgments of the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue that the finding recorded by the Trial Court that at the time of allotment of land to the petitioner there were no landless agricultural labourers who had not been allotted any land, has not been upset.;