RAM BABU Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Nitin Kumar Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State -respondents and Sri Sandeep Chaudhary holding brief of Sri M.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha. While assailing the impugned order learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted benefit under section 122B(4 -F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) over Plot No. 253, measuring about 1.188 hectare situated in Village Budhpur, Pargana and Tehsil Dibai, District Bulandshahr vide order dated 26.4.2011 on the basis of the report of revenue authorities affirming the possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute since prior to the cut of date, 13th May, 2007.

(2.) AGAINST which a complaint was filed by a private individual, disputing the petitioner's possession. It was rejected by the Sub -Divisional Officer vide order dated 30.3.2013, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. It is submitted that all of a sudden the petitioner's name from the revenue record has been expunged taking note of the fact that prior to extension of benefit under section 122B(4 -F) of the Act on two occasions lease were granted to the petitioner, therefore benefit under sub -section (4 -F) of section 122B of the Act could not be extended to the petitioner as he was not landless person.

(3.) FROM the perusal of the record, it appears that the order of expansion of the petitioner's name from the revenue record is an ex parte order as neither there is any mention about the notice nor any version of the petitioner while expunging the name of the petitioner from the revenue record.