RAJA RAM Vs. COMMISSIONER AGRA DIVISION AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.

(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of.

(3.) THE main contention of counsel for the petitioner is that Sub Divisional Officer cancelled his agreement without affording any kind of opportunity to the petitioner. THE counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this contention was also accepted by the Commissioner but Commissioner inspite of accepting this submission erred in dismissing the appeal. THE counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgments of this Court in 1996 AWC 61; Mukhtar Ali v. State of U. P. and Others as well as 1996 AWC 152 Sita v. State of U. P. and Others.