S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings for cancellation of patta under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Gaon Sabha/Land Management Committee through resolution dated 11.12.1992 allotted patta of different portions of land vested in it to 36 persons including Smt. Son Kali-respondent No. 1. Petitioner's father late Shri Radhey Shyam challenged the said order through application under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act on the ground that he was in possession since before Zamindari Abolition over the land in dispute hence it was not vacant and patent grounds that there was no agenda, no munadi and provisions of Rules 173 to 176 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules were violated were also taken. Smt. Son Kali was allotted an area of 1 bigha 10 biswas out of gaon sabha plot No. 2119/2. In para 5 of the writ petition it has been stated that the said plot was in actual cultivatory possession of late Radhey Shyam-father of the petitioner since before the abolition of Zamindari. THIS allegation is patently false as at no point of time land in dispute was entered in the revenue record in the name of late Radhey Shyam. Since zamindari abolition it was entered as gaon sabha land. Even if it is assumed that Radhey Shyam was in possession, his possession was absolutely unauthorised and such a person is not entitled to challenge the allotment proceedings. The case initiated by Radhey Shyam was registered as Case No. 9/96-97, Radhey Shyam v. Son Kali, Collector Kanpur Dehat decided the matter on 26.8.1998 and held the allotment in favour of respondent No. 1-Son Kali to be valid. Cancellation application was accordingly dismissed. Respondent No. 1 had also contended that she had undergone tubectomy operation. The Collector also found that respondent No. 1 was otherwise also entitled for allotment. The Collector found that agenda was properly circulated and munadi was also done and that she was also delivered possession through dakhalnama. Against the said order petitioner filed revision being Revision No. 46/159 of 1998-99 which was dismissed on 13.7.2000 by Additional Commissioner (Administration) hence this writ petition. Courts below also held that consolidation had taken place in the village in question and petitioner did not file any objection regarding his right over the land in dispute. Lower revisional court further held that petitioner possessed sufficient land and petitioner did not belong to Scheduled Caste and that apart from petitioner no other person challenged the allotment which was made in favour of 36 persons including respondent No. 1. Before the courts below no such argument was raised that respondent No. 1 or her husband already possessed sufficient land.
(3.) THE finding recorded by the courts below are basically findings of fact requiring no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Petitioner's father's claim of possession or any sort of right was also barred by Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act. However, there is one general aspect of the matter regarding allotment of gaon sabha land which requires consideration. Generally complaints are filed that proceedings of allotment are done surreptitiously and in fact residents of the village in question do not get information of allotment. The procedure of munadi through beating of drum as provided under Rules 173 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules has become obsolete. It is extremely difficult if not impossible to prove as to whether munadi was done through beating of drum or not. In every village in Uttar Pradesh several persons read newspapers. Accordingly, it is essential that information regarding allotment shall be published in some such Hindi newspaper which has got wide circulation in the area like 'Dainik Jagran' or 'Amar Ujala' atleast two weeks in advance so that all those persons who belong to the eligible category and who are desirous of getting allotment of gaon sabha land may apply for the same. In this manner procedure of allotment will be completely aboveboard and transparent.;