PREM NARAIN TIWARI Vs. COLLECTOR JHANSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. A. Sharma, J. On 29. 6. 1980 a plot of land of 10 x 10 yards was settled in favour of the petitioner by the Gaon Sabha on the basis of auction in which his bid was the highest. On 28. 12. 1980 the Land Management Committee of the Gaon Sabha passed a resolution granting lease of the said land to the petitioner for constructing house and it was approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 27. 4. 1981. In the proceedings under Section 122-B of the U. P. Zamindari Aboli tion and Land informs Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of the petitioner from the land in dispute, Tahsildar vide his order dated 29. 11. 1980 has held that on the land in dispute petitioner's father had constructed a Kachcha house, which bad fallen during the rainy season and when the petitioner was reconstructing his house. Dispute was raised by the Gaon Sabha, claiming the land as its property. It was further held that the petitioner in order to avoid any litigation purchased this land at a public auction conducted by the Gaon Sabha for a sum of Rs. 8,000/- which was the highest bid and thereafter he has con structed his house again over it. After holding as above the Tahsildar decided in favour of the petitioner. The Collector, however, in exercise of his power under Sec. 122-C (6) of the Act, has cancelled the Patta of the petitioner vide order dated 22. 6. 1984. Being aggrieved by it, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) IN the writ petition it has inter alia been slated by the petitioner that he has already constructed a house over the land in dispute before the Collector in itiated the impugned proceedings against him, and the Gaon Sabha after reserv ing about 20 acres of land for Abadi for allotment of Harijans auctioned some other land for constructing houses by means of public auction in which the bid of the petitioner being highest was accepted. It has also been asserted that petitioner fulfilled all the qualifications and was eligible for allotment of the house site.

(3.) THAT apart, after the petitioner received a notice from the Collector, he made an application before him for adjournment of the case on the ground that similar matter is pending before the Board of Revenue in revision and, therefore, the case be adjourned till the revision is decided. This application was rejected by the Collector. But after rejecting the application, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to produce evidence in support of his claim and without giving any such opportunity the order of cancellation was passed. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the averments made in the writ petition, which have not been rebutted by the State in its counter affidavit, it appears to us that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.