SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER MATHURA Vs. SHIWALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON June 7, 1971 the Land Management Committee passed a resolution allotting plot No. 99 (area .38 acres) to Sher Singh, pre decessor of respondents Nos. 1 to 7, Dharam Singh respondent No. 8 made a complaint to the Chief Minister that the allotment has not been in accordance with the rules. The Chief Minister directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to look into the matter. The Sub-Divisional Officer issued a notice initiating proceedings under Rule 115-N of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Re forms Rules- Dharm Singh contested the proceedings. He inter alia pleaded that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no juris diction to examine the validity of the allotment in his favour. Nonetheless, the Sub-Divisional Officer continued with the proceedings. Thereupon Sher Singh instituted a writ petition in this Court

(2.) A learned single Judge held that Rule 115-N applies to cancellation of an order of allotment which is based on a public auction as provided by Rule 115-1. It does not authorise the As sistant Collector to cancel the allotment orders based upon a resolution passed by the Land Management Committee. On this view the writ petition was allowed and the proceedings under Rule 115-N were quashed. Aggrieved, the Sub-Divi sional Officer and the State have come up in appeal.

(3.) IT was urged that since the rule authorises a person interested to make an application within three months of the date of auction, it is implicit that a person interested cannot apply for can cellation of an order of allotment based upon a resolution. We are unable to agree. The rule as it stands provides for a period of limitation for an application to cancel the allotment order based upon an auction. If the commencement of the period of limitation is the date of auc tion, then on the plain language of the rule there is no prescribed period of limitation for an application to cancel -the allotment order based on a resolution. The period of limitation of three month can apply to the latter class of cases if the term 'date of auction' is in that cate gory of cases interpreted to refer to the date of the resolution, or the date of the order of allotment based on a resolution. In any way, it cannot be urged that the rule does not authorise a person interest ed to apply for the cancellation of an order of allotment in cases where it is based on a resolution.