PHOOL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Umar Iqbal Khan, Advocate assisted by Mr. Laxmi Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. L.K. Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 i.e. Land Management Committee.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is that petitioners, who are resident of VillageBudhiya, Pargana Dasna, TahsilDhaulana, District Hapur, are pursuing the case for cancellation of lease under Sec. 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the allottee, who were granted patta through proposal dtd. 2/1/1997 and the patta was approved on 26/2/1997 by SubDivisional Officer in respect of 60 allottees out of 84. According to the petitioners out of 60 allottees, so many are ineligible, as such, their patta are to be cancelled. Complaints were made by private persons for cancellation on the ground that patta is based on fraud, accordingly, a Case No. 15 of 199798, under Sec. 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was registered before Additional Collector. The Gaon Sabha supported the patta granted to the patta holders, accordingly, Additional Collector vide order dtd. 21/1/1999 dismissed the application filed under Sec. 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act but liberty was given to make a further enquiry in respect to ineligible persons. Against the order dtd. 21/1/1999, the revision was allowed by Additional Commissioner. Revision filed by petitioners against the order of Additional Commissioner was pending before the Board of Revenue. A fresh patta cancellation proceeding has been initiated by private complainant / petitioners after 14 years from 26/2/1997, which has been registered as Case No. D2014117300648 (Phool Singh v. Pushpa and others), under Sec. 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act and Additional Collector vide order dtd. 28/11/2014 cancelled the allotment dtd. 2/1/1997 / 26/2/1997 in respect of 31 allottees out of 60. Against the order dtd. 28/11/2014, allottees, Pushpa Devi and others filed Revision No. 6 of 201415 (Pushpa Devi and others v. Phool Singh and others), under Sec. 333 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, which was allowed by Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut setting aside the order dtd. 15/4/2015 on the ground that proceedings are time barred due to provisions contained under Sec. 198 (6) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act as well as the same is hit by principle of resjudicata. Petitioners challenged the order dtd. 15/4/2015 through Revision No. 81 of 2015 (Computerized Case No. C201511000000081), under Sec. 333 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, which has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dtd. 13/5/2022, hence this writ petition for quashing the orders dtd. 13/5/2022 passed in different revision by the Board of Revenue, order dtd. 15/4/2015 passed by Additional Commissioner in Revision No. 6/ 201415 as well as to affirm the order dtd. 28/11/2014 passed by Additional Collector, the other reliefs were also claimed in the writ petition.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners submitted that Additional Collector vide order dtd. 28/11/2014 has rightly cancelled the patta of 31 allottees exercising jurisdiction, under Sec. 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. He further submitted that fraud vitiates the illegal proceedings, as such, the illegal and fraudulent patta was rightly cancelled by Additional Collector vide order dtd. 28/11/2014 but the order dtd. 28/11/2014 has been illegally set aside in revisional exercise of jurisdiction by Additional Commissioner on the ground of Sec. 198 (6) of U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act as well as on principle of resjudicata, which is wholly illegal approach of Additional Commissioner. He further submitted that quasijudicial authority has illegally ignored the fact finding report submitted by the authorities. He further submitted that record of the proceedings be summoned and appropriate enquiry be setup to protect the State property. He further submitted that there is violation of Sec. 28 (C) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, which vitiates the allotment made in favour of ineligible person. Counsel for the petitioners filed written argument also in support of his oral argument. He placed reliance upon the following judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of High Court :