SABIR HUSAIN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Brijesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent- Gaon Sabha.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the lease was granted in favour of peti-tioner on 6/10/1990/ 14/9/1990 in respect Khasra No. 14 area 0.0690 hectare situated in Village- Mohamoodpur, Tahsil-Sadar, District- Rampur. The name of the petitioner was accordingly, recorded in the revenue record. Respondent No. 3 along with two others filed a case under Sec. 198 (4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act") on 26/2/1993 for cancellation of petitioner's lease. The aforementioned proceeding was registered as Case No. 57 / 103 of 1996-97. The aforementioned case was heard by the Additional Col-lector and the same was allowed vide order dtd. 27/7/1999 cancelling the petitioner's lease on the ground that the petitioner is not landless agricultural labourer as well as petitioner is not resident of the locality. Petitioner challenged the order of Additional Collector dtd. 27/7/1999 by way of revision be-fore the Commissioner. The aforementioned revision was registered as Revision No. 126/1998-99 and the same was heard by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Moradabad Division, Moradabad. The aforementioned revision was ultimately allowed by the Additional Commissioner setting aside the order cancelling the lease of the petitioner and affirmed the petitioner's lease recording finding of fact that petitioner is resident of the village in question and petitioner was landless agricultural labourer. Respondent No. 3 filed a revision against the order dtd. 22/11/2000 passed by the Additional Commissioner before the Board of Revenue, which was registered as Revision No. 49 of 2002-2003. Board of Revenue vide order dtd. 11/4/2005 allowed the revision setting aside the order of Additional Collector and af-firmed the order cancelling the petitioner's lease, hence this writ petition for the following reliefs :

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was granted agricultural lease on 14/9/1990/ 6/10/1990 in accordance with the provisions contained under the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and the Rules framed there-under. He further submitted that the petitioner was accordingly recorded in the revenue record. He further placed the copy of the revenue record is annexed along with the writ petition as Annexure No. 2. He further submitted that the petitioner is still in possession over the plot allotted to him. He next submitted that the private respondent has initiated the proceedings for cancellation of petitioner's lease and Additional Collector has allowed the application under Sec. 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act as well as cancelled the petitioner's lease on misconceived ground that the petitioner is not resident of the village in question and petitioner is not landless agricultural labourer, as such, there was no illegality in the execution of lease in favour of the petitioner. He next submitted that the Board of Revenue has illegally set aside the order of Additional Commissioner and cancelled the petitioner's lease which is wholly illegal.