NANAK CHAND NARWANI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 has not put in appearance.

(2.) THE present petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the two orders 20.2.98 and 19.8.98 passed by respondent No. 2 and 1 respectively.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY , the respondent No. 5, another applicant, who had also moved his application on 2.4.97 claimed that the lease should have been granted in his favour. He had applied for six acres of land. The respondent No. 5 moved an appeal before the appellate authority and an order was passed in appeal, by which the appellate authority by way of appellate order dated 20th February, 1998, bifurcated the lease and gave 4 acres each to the petitioner as well as to the respondent No. 5. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the appellate order, filed a revision under Rule 78 of the Rules aforesaid. The revisional or appellate order of the appellate authority and the revisional order dated 19.8.98, bifurcation of the lease was upheld.' From the perusal of the record of the case, it appears that an advertisement was made of plot No. 302 as a compact area of 8 acres and this being the case, the lease was settled on the petitioner by way of an order dated 31.8.97 as a compact area.