A.P.SAHI, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri R.C. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.N. Bhakta for the respondent nos. 5 and 6 and the learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the contesting respondents as also on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. However, no counsel is present for the Gaon Sabha when the matter is taken up by this Court. The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) dated 6.12.2007 whereby the authority has refused to take action on the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Section 122-C of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The application was moved under Clause 6 of Section 122-C praying that the allotment be cancelled keeping in view the provisions of Section 115-Q of the rules framed under the aforesaid Act. The same is quoted below:- "115-Q. The person to whom the housing site is allotted shall be required to build a house and begin to reside in it or to use it for the purpose for which it was built within three years from the date of allotment: If he fails to do so or uses it at any time for a purpose other than that for which it was allotted his rights shall be extinguished and the site may be taken over by the Land Management Committee: Provided that in the case of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe the aforesaid time limit for building of the house shall not apply."
(3.) THE ground taken is that the allotment was made in favour of the contesting respondent in 1994. The fact that possession was not handed over to the contesting respondents is also admitted in the counter affidavit where a copy of Dakhalnama had been filed which is dated 3.4.2003. A first information report was lodged that the petitioner failed to deliver the possession and in the first information report it is admitted that the possession was sought to be given on 3.4.2003. It was submitted by Sri R.C. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the aforesaid admitted position the contesting respondents could not be permitted to raise constructions after a lapse of nine years in view of the bar as contained in Rule 115-Q. It is not disputed that the contesting respondents are not scheduled caste and, therefore, the bar of three years would operate against them.;