ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. - (1.) These three writ petitions raise an identical controversy. Identical submissions have been made by counsel for the petitioners in these three writ petitions. They are therefore being decided by a common orders. Heard Shri Kundan Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Arun Kumar Srivastava for the respondent no.4, Gaon Sabha as also learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents.
(2.) The petitioners in these three writ petitions were granted an asami lease in the year 2000. Subsequently, proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act were drawn and therein, the names of the petitioners were ordered to be expunged and the land which was the land of public utility was ordered to be recorded as it was prior to the lease. These orders with regard to the petitioners were passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in the year 2013. The petitioners filed time barred revisions before the Additional Commissioner in the year 2019, which have been dismissed. It is these two orders, those passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and the Additional Commissioner, which are impugned in these three writ petitions.
(3.) The contention of counsel is that the petitioners belongs to the scheduled caste. They have been in possession of the land allotted to them since the date of the lease. They have therefore, perfected their rights and cannot be evicted in view of the provisions contained in Section 122B (4F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The second contention of counsel for the petitioners is that the Sub Divisional Officer has cancelled the lease granted to them. This power, he does not possess. The order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer were therefore, wholly without jurisdiction, apart from being exparte. These writ petitions are therefore, liable to be allowed and the lease granted to the petitioners are liable to be restored.;