DHANAUTI Vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER VARANASI DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Triveni Shanker, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ajeet Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 & 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 & 5.

(2.) Notices were issued to other respondents. Some of them have already filed writ petition no.17310 of 1998 (Loknath and others Vs. Board of Revenue and others). The petitioners herein claim? that they were allotted land by the Gaon Sabha in the meeting held on 10.07.1994. The same came to be approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Saidpur on 09.12.1994. The dispute arose on account of an application having been moved by Chandra Deo the then Gram Pradhan in the year 1996 and a copy of the said application on which proceedings were initiated, is filed as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition.

(3.) Sri Triveni Shanker, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first question that arises for consideration is that such a proceeding could not have been initiated or concluded without putting the petitioners to notice in terms of sub-section (5) of Section 198 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. He further contends that the findings which have been recorded on the basis of an alleged report of the? Tehsildar dated 15.07.1996, was never made known to the petitioners, and the said report has been made the basis for the cancellation of the lease. A categorical plea has been raised to this effect in paragraph nos.14 to 16 of the writ petition. It is further urged that there was neither any irregularity nor were the petitioners ineligible for grant of lease and in the absence of any notice and without any explanation in this regard, the conclusions drawn are ex-parte without allowing the participation of the petitioners under the statutory requirement aforesaid.