R.S.Singh, J. - (1.) This petition has been directed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 22-11-1973, by which the Sub Divisional Officer (hereinafter referred to as S. D. O.) has passed an order under Section 95-A of the U. P: Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 to execute the lease within a period of one week.
(2.) The facts of the case, as set-up by the petitioners, in brief are that in the year 1964, under the grow more campaign, the State Government directed the pradhans of the Gaon Sabha to give possession of the user lands to the needy persons and if on giving possession, they are able to cultivate these areas, they should be finally granted pattas for the same. In pursuance of this direction, the previous pradhan gave possession of the disputed plots to the petitioner No. 1 in the year 1964. The petitioner No. 1 had been in possession since the year 1964 and he made certain investment in making the plots fit for cultivation. By a resolution dated 26-12-1971, the Land Management Committee made the allotment of the aforesaid plots in favour of the contesting respondents. The S. D. O., by his order dated 30-3-1972 approved the allotment. On 22-11-1973, the Tahsildar reported to the S. D. O. that in spite of his order, the Pradhan has not executed the lease. An application was moved on behalf of the lessee to issue direction under Section 95-A of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. The S. D. O. after hearing the concerned parties, by an impugned order issued direction for execution of the lease within a week. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order of the S. D. O. before this Court.
(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that under Section 95-A of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, the S. D. O. has no jurisdiction to pass such direction. Therefore, the order passed by the S. D. O. is without jurisdiction. It was further contended by the learned counsel that the land in dispute was given by the Pradhan to the petitioner, No. 1 and, therefore, it could not have been allotted in favour of the respondents, as the land was not vacant. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that in the impugned order, Section 95-A of the U, P. Panchayat Raj Act has wrongly been quoted. In fact, the S D. O. has got the power to issue such direction and it falls under R. 115 (J) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Rules. The next contention of the learned counsel was that the petitioners have got no locus standi to challenge the impugned order. Therefore, the writ is liable to be dismissed on this ground as well.;