RAMDAYAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Satendra Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) By means of the present petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dtd. 21/1/2025 passed by the Board of Revenue as well as the order dtd. 22/11/2006 passed by Assistant Collector, First Class, Tehsil Bilgram, District Hardoi thereby cancelling the patta granted in favour of the petitioner and has further sought a direction to the respondents to restore the said patta and also not to interfere in his possession.

(3.) It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a farmer and was allotted a patta of land bearing Gata No. 55 M/0.1000, 33M/0.2000, 70M/0.2500,72M/0.350, total area 0.9000 on lease in the year 1994 to do agricultural work. Subsequently, due to passage of time, the name of the petitioner was recorded as Asankramaniya Bhumidhar in the revenue record pertaining to Fasli year 1408-1413. Subsequently, the concerned Lekhpal submitted a report on 26/6/2006 stating that the petitioner is not doing agricultural work and also that the land which was allotted to the petitioner fall under Category 6 land which is within the purview of Sec. 132 of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act and no Bhumidhari rights would vest in any such person and on the basis of report dtd. 26/6/2006, Assistant Collector, First Class, Tehsil Bilgram, District Hardoi recorded the fact that a perusal of the aforesaid report clearly indicates that the land on which the patta has been given to the petitioner belongs to Category 6 land on which Ganga river, sand and forest land and Gaon Sabha is recorded which is for public purposes and has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi and others, 2001 (92) RD 689 (SC) and cancelled the said patta directing the authority to record the name of Gaon Sabha in place of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue duly considered and appreciated the contentions of the petitioner that the proceedings are conducted in gross violation of principle of nature justice inasmuch as no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before cancellation of the patta but instated of recording any finding in this regard revisional authority only considered the facts mentioned in the order of the Assistant Collector, First Class, Tehsil Bilgram, District Hardoi and stated that no rights would vest in the aforesaid land which falls under Sec. 132 of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act and rejected the revision.