SHANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the contesting respondent and the learned Standing Counsel at great length. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 6.8.1996, 5.11.1996 passed by the Collector; Deoria, and the order dated 17.5.2004 passed by the Additional Commissioner Gorakhpur Division Gorakhpur. Further, a writ of mandamus has also been sought for, to affirm the allotment order dated 27.3.1993 passed by the Assistant Collector Salempur district Deoria.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the vide order dated 6.8.1996 passed by the-Collector, Deoria, in the case of Indrasan Tiwari v. Smt. Shanti Devi-village Naunapar Tappa Bhatani Pargana and Tahsil Salempur district Deoria, under Section 122-C(6) of the U.P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Act (in short referred to as the Act), the lease dated 27.3.1993 in respect of allotment of plot No. 816 area 2 dismal of Abadi land, to the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that firstly the allottee is not eligible person secondly her husband is a Government Servant and thirdly the proposal has also not been made by the village Pradhan in accordance with the rules. This order was sought to be recalled by the petitioner by preferring recall application which has been rejected by a detailed order dated 5.11.1996. Feeling aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner preferred Revision No. 41/20/D of 1996-Smt. Shanti Devi v. Indrasan Tiwari and others, before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, which has also been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur vide order dated 17.5.2004. These orders are impugned in the instant writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically submitted that the aforesaid allotment of lease pertaining to the land in question was given to the petitioner in lieu of her sterilization under which the petitioner had under gone operation of Tubectomy, therefore, the respondents who are officers of the State, cannot cancel the allotment made to the petitioner under the aforesaid scheme and they are bound by principle of estoppel. It is also submitted that the respondent No. 4, at whose instance, the proceeding for cancellation of allotment of lease of the petitioner, was initiated before the Collector, has no locus standi to challenge the aforesaid allotment made in favour of the petitioner as he is not aggrieved person for the said allotment. Lastly, he has also submitted that the initial impugned order dated 6.8.1996 passed by the Collector was against the principle of natural justice as the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing to have her say in the matter before passing the said order.