Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.?
(2.) The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 25.09.2013 passed by the Collector, Kushinagar has approached this Court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the order has submitted that the benefit under Section 122B (4F) of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is granted to any agricultural labour belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe who has been in occupation over a particular Gaon Sabha land from before a particular date. He submits that this benefit accrues on the basis of the fact that he had been in possession over the Gaon Sabha land. He further submits that no suit for declaration or application is required to be filed for any declaration for extending the benefit of Section 122B (4F) of 'the Act'. He relied upon the judgement reported in Monorey Vs. Board of Revenue, 2003 AIR(SC) 4102 and submitted that there was no patta in his favour and, therefore, the provisions of Section 198(4) of 'the Act' could not be applied to withdraw the benefit which had accrued to him under Section 122B (4F) of the Act. If any patta had been granted to an agricultural labourer by following the procedures prescribed under 'the Act' only then could the provisions of Section 198(4) of 'the Act' be applied for the cancellation of the patta. In the instant case when there was no patta then the provisions of Section 198(4) of 'the Act' could not have been applied at all.;