JIYACHHI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, for the petitioner and Sri R.C. Upadhyay Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.3.2014 to the extent of remand, passed by the Additional Commissioner, by which the order dated 17.2.2012 was set aside, revision of the petitioner was allowed and the case was remanded to the Court below for deciding the case afresh in the light of the observations made in the order. In the proceeding initiated on the complaint of Chandu Das, respondents, for cancellation of patta of the petitioner dated 2.1.1987 under section 198(4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), on the allegation that the petitioner was not eligible for granting patta and otherwise also the land was not vacant at the time of allotment, a report was called for from Revenue Inspector who submitted his report on 13.8.2007, which was forwarded to the Additional Collector on 22.8.2007. Both the parties adduced their evidence and on scrutinising the evidence the Additional Collector found that the land in dispute was not vacant at the time of allotment and cancelled the patta of the petitioner by order dated 17.2.2012. The petitioner filed a revision from the aforesaid order before the Additional Commissioner on the ground that report of the Revenue Inspector was based on hearsay as the petitioner was not informed about the visit of Revenue Inspector on the spot and the inordinate delay in filing the application for cancellation of patta could not have been condoned. After hearing both the parties, the order dated 17.2.2012 was set aside and the case was remanded to the Court below for taking evidence of the parties and deciding the case afresh.

(2.) THE Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the application, the contesting respondent has stated that patta in favour of the petitioner was granted in the year 1987. The application for cancellation of the patta was filed on 20.6.2007. In the present case, limitation of five years, as provided under section 198(6)(b), is applicable. The application is long barred by time, as such, it was liable to be rejected, but the Additional Collector has illegally taken cognizance of it. However, the Additional Commissioner has rightly set aside the order dated 17.2.2012 but remanded the case to the Court below for deciding the case afresh after hearing the parties, which was not required at all.

(3.) I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties and examined the record.