RAJ KALI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ambuj Srivastava, Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ayank Mishra, Counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 8, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. K.K. Mani Counsel for respondent No.5.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that petitioners along with 38 others were granted patta in the year 1987 by the Gram Sabha, which was duly approved by the competent authority in the year 1987. On the basis of patta granted to the petitioners, the name of the petitioners as well as 38 others patta holders were recorded in the revenue record and all the patta holders including petitioners came in possession over the allotted land since 1987. One Private complaint has been filed by respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 which was registered as case No.198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act against the petitioners and 38 others patta holders. A report was called for from Naib Tehsildar Gangoh, District-Saharanpur, who submitted his report dtd. 12/7/1988, in which it is mentioned that petitioners were granted patta on the ground of the vasectomy operation. It is also mentioned in the report that complaint filed by respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 is baseless and liable to be dismissed. Additional Collector Saharanpur (respondent No.4) heard the case under Sec. 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A& L.R. Act and vide order dtd. 31/5/1993 allowed the patta cancellation application filed by private respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 in respect of petitioners only while in respect to other 38 patta holders the patta cancellation application was rejected. Against the order dtd. 31/5/1993 petitioners filed a revision before Commissioner which was registered as Revision No.124 of 1992-93 and was heard by Additional was Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut. Additional Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut (respondent No.3) dismissed the petitioner's revision vide order dtd. 30/4/1994. Against the order dtd. 30/4/1994, petitioners filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, which was registered as Revision No.210 of 1993-94 and Board of Revenue vide order dtd. 26/10/1994 dismissed the petitioner's revision. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) This Court while entertaining the writ petition has granted the interim order on 2/10/1995, which runs as follows: