PAWAN Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The land in dispute was declared surplus in ceiling proceedings and was allotted to three persons including both the petitioners. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, filed complaint that the allotment was wrong for the reason that petitioners were not deserving persons as they belonged to higher caste namely Rajput, Additional Commissioner, Administration Moradabad, Division Moradabad through order dated 27.2.1998 passed in Misc. case No. 7 of 1996-97 under Section 27(4) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act [Bihari and others v. Pawan and others) held that the allotment made in favour of the petitioners was wrong and cancelled the same. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition. In the said order, it is mentioned that 33 persons belonging to scheduled caste were available for allotment, still land was allotted to the petitioners belonging to higher caste.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are also members of the higher cast hence they are not aggrieved persons.

(3.) Sri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 states that he is not aware about the caste of his clients. Be that as it may, under Section 27(4) the commissioner has full power to initiate proceedings suo-moto. Proceedings initiated on the application filed by a person, who is not aggrieved person, may be treated to be suo-moto, proceedings.