SUBHAG Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions raise common questions of law and are founded on common facts as such are being disposed of together with the consent of the parties. I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners in both the writ petitions and Sri R.S. Ram for the contesting Respondents and the learned Standing Counsel for the State as well as learned Counsel for the Land Management Committee. The State has not filed any counter-affidavit and since the facts are not disputed at this stage, it is no longer necessary to keep the matter pending as the private Respondent has filed a counter-affidavit.

(2.) The short question raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners in both the writ petitions is that the lease granted in their favour in the year 1986 had become final and the issue relating to such grant could not be reopened after 10 years on an application moved by the contesting Respondents in the year 2006. The submission is that the show-cause notice was barred by limitation.

(3.) The Petitioners filed their objections before the learned Collector after the issuance of the notice raising this issue of limitation. The Collector answered the said issue in favour of the Petitioners by clearly recording that the application which has been filed by the contesting Respondents for cancellation is barred by time as per provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 198 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. The Collector recorded a finding to that effect but thereafter proceeded to entertain the claim on the ground that the same land had been earlier allotted in the year 1970 to the complainant therefore the same deserves an enquiry.