KANHAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, who claim to be in possession of the land situated at Aarazi no. 282/1 area 4 biswa and Aarazi No. 282/2 area 4 Biswa, out of 16 biswa of Aarazi No. 282 recorded at 'usar' situated at Village Pyarepur, District Allahabad questioned the allotment made in favour of the respondents under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as UPZA & LR Act). Having failed to convince the courts below present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 5.6.2006 passed by Addl. Commissioner, (Administration) Allahabad Region, Allahabad.

(2.) Ground of challenge in the writ petition is that the respondents No. 6 & 7 are entitled to inherit the land owned by their father who is Bhumidhar as such are not entitled to allotment made in their favour under the UPZA & LR Act. At the time of allotment of the land in favour of respondents no. 6 & 7, petitioners were in possession of the land. On an application being filed by the petitioners under Section 198(4) of the UPZA & LR Act the Collector ordered an enquiry to be undertaken by the Tehsildar concerned. The report suggests that the petitioners were in possession of the land. On the basis of the report, the patta allotted in favour of the petitioners was cancelled vide order dated 31.08.1992. Aggrieved by this order revision was preferred by respondent nos. 6 & 7, which was allowed and recommendation was made to the Board of Revenue who on reference remanded the case back to the Collector vide order dated 11.6.2000. On remand the Collector dismissed the application filed by the petitioners vide order dated 31.08.2004 against which a revision was preferred by the petitioners which was also dismissed vide order dated 5.6.2006. Case of the petitioners was rejected by the courts below on two grounds;

(3.) On the other hand stand of the respondents is that the petitioners are trespassers and had no right to question the allotment made in their favour. It is contended that the petitioners have no locus to question this order of allotment as none of his right has been violated. He has not suffered any personal legal injury. It is further contended in the counter affidavit that the land had vested in the Gaon Sabha as such the petitioners could not claim to be in possession of the land. The father of the petitioners has agricultural land in village but the respondents were living separately from their father as such they could not be held to be Bhumidhars of the land owned by their father.