LAWS(ALL)-2013-4-142

RAM AWADH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

Decided On April 10, 2013
RAM AWADH Appellant
V/S
BOARD OF REVENUE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners states that he may be permitted to amend the prayer by deleting the quashing of the order dated 23.8.1973. He is permitted to so during the course of the day. Through this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 8.5.1989 passed by the Board of Revenue, Allahabad in reference No. 127 of 1983-84 (Shobh Nath v. Gaon Sabha) and order dated 18.10.1989 passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Allahabad in review application in reference No. 127 of 1988-89 (Ram Dular v. Shobh Nath).

(2.) Heard Sri M.K. Dhrubvanshi, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri S.K. Tyagi, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 5/1 and 5/2.

(3.) The facts giving rise to this case are that, it appears that a lease was executed by the Gaon Sabha in the name of father of respondent Nos. 5/1 and 5/2 on 21.7.1971 for plot Nos. 325, 362, 489, 885 and 480. The petitioners herein filed an application for cancellation of the aforesaid lease on the ground that respondent No. 5 is the son of sitting Gram Pradhan and had more than 3.126 acres of land, therefore, allotment could not be made in his favour. In addition to that, it was also stated that before granting the lease, no Munadi was conducted and the Sub-Divisional Officer has also not approved the proposal of the Gaon Sabha for grant of lease. The aforesaid application was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 23.8.1973. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.8.1973, respondent No. 5 had preferred revision No. 186 of 2005 before the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad. The aforesaid revision was heard by learned Additional Commissioner, Faizabad and he found that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was without jurisdiction as for cancellation of agricultural lease, the Assistant Collector in-charge is not competent authority and the lease could only be cancelled by the Collector of the concerned district.