AWADHESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Kamlesh Singh, Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents, Mr. Krishna Mohan Tripathi, Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5, Mr. L.K. Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Azad Rai, Counsel for respondent No.6, Land Management Committee.

(2.) The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 31/1/2015 passed by respondent No.3 as well as order dtd. 30/4/2022 passed by respondent No.2 in the proceeding under Sec. 198(4) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that lease was executed on 26/2/2011 in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 along with the others in respect to the plot No.145 and 150 situated in village-Hatwa Rampur, Manduki, Pargana-Kada, Tehsil-Sirathu, District-Kaushambi. Proceeding for cancellation of lease executed in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 was initiated on the basis of application moved by the petitioners on 13/8/2012 impleading the respondent Nos.4 and 5 only in the application. In the application, it has been mentioned by the petitioners that tree have been planted by the petitioners' ancestors over the plot in dispute. It is also mentioned in the application that lease holders respondent Nos.4 and 5 are not landless agricultural labourers, as such they were not entitled for the lease which was allowed in their favour. It was also mentioned that land was not vacant rather petitioners were in possession. The reports of the revenue authorities were submitted in the proceeding and thee Collector vide order dtd. 31/1/2015 rejected the application filed by petitioners for cancellation of the lease recording the finding of fact that lease holders were entitled for the lease as procedure for allotment has been followed i.e.duggi munadi etc and lease holders belong to the Scheduled Caste community, as such no interference is required against the allotment made by the authority. Against the order dtd. 31/1/2015, petitioners filed revision under Sec. 333 of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act which was also dismissed by the Revisional Court vide order dtd. 30/4/2022, hence this writ petition.