BHAGAUTI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri M.G.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Chief Standing counsel for the State.

(2.) CHALLENGING the order dated 11.2.10 passed by Additional Collector, Balarampur, in case no.17/16 filed under Section 198 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. He has further challenged the allotment of a horticulture lease granted to respondent no.4 Ram Lal on 24.2.95 by S.D.O. Utraula.

(3.) IT emerges from record that petitioner is a 70 years old villager, Tehsil Utraula, District Balrampur was unhappy with the allotment of horticulture lease granted to one Ram Lal respondent no.4 of the same village. It appears that the lease was granted after completing necessary formalities. It appears that the plantation lease were granted to Ram Lal by the Revenue Authorities after completing necessary formalities on 24.2.1995. After about one year 8 months i.e. October 1996 the petitioner a villager of the same village thought he was aggrieved by allotment of lease. It is mentioned that he was not an applicant seeking plantation lease in February, 1995. He may be one of the villagers living in the aforesaid villages. The application was filed on 15.11.1996 seeking quashing of the lease. The Chief Revenue Offiver, Gonda on 20.11.96 rejected the application at the stage of admission. Revision was preferred to Additional Commissioner, Faizabad and the case was remanded back with some observations to the Additional Collector second time on 30.12.03, Additional Collector again rejected the application. The petitioner did not sit quietly, he again approach the Additional Collector, challenging the order passed by Additional Commissioner on 30.12.03 in which operation of the order was stayed. However after five years of long litigation Revisional Court had allowed the revision on 30.12.08 and remanded the matter back to the Additional Collector for considering the same afresh. Latest report was sought from Additional Commissioner regarding status of the lease. The Additional Commissioner vide report dated 26.10.09 submitted that the plantation of horticulture lease was being utilized properly in accordance with the spirit of the allotment of the order. Objections were submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner challenge the report of the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner Balrampur dealt with the matter and rejected the application submitted by the petitioner on 11.2.2010. The Additional Collector has passed a reasoned and speaking order. While dealing with the application, he has recorded a finding of fact that plot no.420 covering an area of one acre was Navin Prati Khata land was existed as per Additional Commissioner latest report. There exist 50 popular trees, 30 eucalyptus, 6 Shesam, 6 Shagaun, 1 mango and 1 frind etc. A finding of fact has been recorded that the plantation lease was being used properly for growing tress and there was a grove cover on the land. The AdditionalCollector has also scrutinized the file relating to allotment of lease granted in February 1995. He found that there was no illegality or irregularity in the allotment. In addition to this the Additional Collector has found that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge this lease as he was neither an applicant seeking plantation lease nor he was affected in any manner by grant of such lease. No material or evidence was produced by the petitioner in support of his allegations which were found to be unsubstantiated rather wholly unfounded.