PATIRAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a complainant alleging that the allotments that have been made by the Land Management Committee in favour of the contesting respondents are not in accordance with Rule 176 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952. One of the main contentions is that there has been no advertisement by the Land Management Committee before proceeding with the allotment. Even otherwise no procedure has been followed and persons, who are ineligible have been allotted land.

(2.) FROM the facts on record, it emerges that 20 persons had been allotted land on 5.8.2008. Out of the said allotments except the names of those persons appearing at serial Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6, the others were proposed to be approved which was accepted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 11.1.2010. The allotments came to be challenged in a revision before the Board of Revenue which was allowed on 14.10.2010 setting aside the order dated 11.1.2010 with a direction to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the parties concerned.

(3.) THE respondents appear to have gone up in revision before the Board of Revenue against the said order of the Collector which has been set aside with a direction to the Collector to decide the matter again after excluding land which falls within the definition of public utility land under Section 132 of the 1950 Act. This order of the Board of Revenue dated 2.8.2011 has been assailed by the complainant contending that the Board of Revenue could not have sidelined or overlooked the ratio of the decision in the case of Raja Ram (supra) and could not have passed a judgment which runs counter to the same. Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently urged that by virtue of the impugned order, the earlier direction of the Court and the judgment in the case of Raja Ram (supra) has been avoided for no justification. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order be set aside.