R.P.Gupta, J. - (1.) The present revision is filed by Baboo Lal and 103 others against L.M.C. Purab Sarira and State of U.P.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Land Management Committee village Purab Sarira Pargana Atharban Tahsil Manjhanpur, district Allahabad, on 26-4-81 passed a resolution for allotment of land on Patta to 127 persons including the present revisionist. This resolution was sent for the approval of S.D.O. under Rule 176 of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Rules. S.D.O. Manjhanpur district Allahabad vide his order dated 20-2-82 refused his approval regarding all the 127 persons on the ground that 31 persons were not entitled to pattas and as such it cannot be said that the recommendation for Patta regarding other persons also was correct. The revision filed against this order of S.D.O. 20-2-82 was dismissed by Additional Commissioner Allahabad on 30-4-82. Now the present revision is filed before this court.
(3.) I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The learned counsel for the revisionists on the basis of 1986 R.D. page 8 argued that the said order of the S.D.O. is reviseable. He further argued on the basis of 1983 R.D. 179 that before rejecting the pattas opportunity of hearing should have been given to the revisionists in whose 4 favour the said resolution was passed by L. M. C. He further argued that there was no justification for the S.D.O. to refuse the permission regarding in other persons when only 31 persons out of the 127 were not entitled for pattas. In reply the learned D.G.C. (R.) justified the order of the S.D.O. and argued that Rule 176 does not provide for hearing. Where the intention of the legislature was that hearing should be given, the legislature made specific provision for hearing as under Rule 178-A (1) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules.;