MOHD. SIRAJ Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent No. 4.

(2.) The order under challenge is dtd. 24/9/2014 passed by the Additional Collector (Administration) in proceedings initiated at the behest of the private respondents under Sec. 198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act and while dismissing the said proceedings there are certain observations which has drawn the irk of the petitioner prompting him to file a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Administration) and the revision has also been dismissed by means of order dtd. 29/5/2024.

(3.) Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land in question belonged to the petitioner and has been in the family since the time of his forefathers. It is urged that it is an ancestral property and the name of the grand father of the petitioner was recorded in the Khatauni of 1356 and 1359 fasli years. However, sometime in the decade of 1970, the said land came to be recorded as Banjar and Usar. Upon commencement of consolidation operations the forefather of the petitioner had filed his objections which was upheld thereafter the said entry was corrected and it also was reflected in CH Forms 41 and 45 and thereafter it has been with the petitioner without any demur or challenge from any person. It is at the later stage in the year 2013-14 that the private respondents raised an issue regarding the land belonging to a public utility and the lease granted to the petitioner was invalid, accordingly the same be cancelled and in the alternative, the land be leased to the private respondents.