GHAMANDI Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a review petition against the order dated 3-9-1982 passed by Sri I. B. Singh, learned Member of the Board in two revision Nos. 81 and 82 of 79-80 district Aligarh Ghamandi Lal Vs. State of UP preferred against the common order dated 28-2-80 passed by the Additional Commissioner Agra Division, Agra dismissing thereby revision Nos. 26 and 29 of 79-80 of district Aligarh upholding the order dated 6-11-79 passed by the Additional Collector Aligarh in cancellation of the allotment dated 28-8-75.

(2.) The grounds taken in the petition briefly stated are that on 10-2-78 applicant Ghamandi Lal made a compliant to the Collector Aligarh against -he irregular allotments made by the Pradhan of the village in favour of several persons of the village on the allegations that the allottees were also not eligible tor the Gaon Samaj land. Further contentions of the petitioner are that an enquiry was made by the S.D.O. and the S.D.O. Koil submitted his report dated 2/15-5-78 after which the Additional Collector issued show cause notices to the allottees and to the Chairman L.M.C to show cause why the leases executed in the meeting dated 7-12-75 may not be cancelled and notice was a.so issued to the applicant Ghamandi Lal as complainant and not for the cancellation of leases made in his favour in the meeting of 28-8-75. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that no notices to several allots of Seven but to the utter surprise, under some confusion the Additional collector Aligarh making enquiry passed order of cancellation of pattas made in favour of the applicant - revisionist Ghamandi Lal ana Sita Ram also without affording them any opportunity to safeguard their interest. As a result of which the order dated 6-11-79 passed by the Additional Collector became meaningless, erroneous in law being arbitrary, perverse and without jurisdiction as the learned Additional Collector did not apply his mind and passed the order against the facts of the case. The petitioner has further contended that the learned Additional Commissioner has dismissed the revision of Ghamandi Lal and Sita Ram without applying his mind in passing the order dated 28-2-80 repeating the same error of law as was done by the learned Additional Collector Aligarh rendering the order under revision before this court illegal the order is against the facts of the case itself. Consequently the petitioner says that unfortunately in the second revision the learned Member of the Board also dismissed the revision under his order sought to be reviewed by omitting to consider the facts are evident from the record and thus has committed the same error of law as had been committed by the two courts below.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsels for the petitioner as well as the learned D.G.C. (R) and have perused the file.