RAM CHHABILE Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Bhanu Pratap Pandey preferred an application under Section 122C(6) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter to be referred as an 'Act'), for cancellation of allotment in respect of plot which was said to have been allotted to the petitioner by the Gaon Sabha for building of house, on the ground that such allotment was irregular and against the rules as the petitioner was not entitled for such allotment as he was not a resident of the concerned village and was a retired employee of Railways and his two sons and a daughter -in -law were gainfully employed. The Collector on the basis of material which was before him, vide order dated 28.2.2006, came to the conclusion that Bhanu Pratap was not a person aggrieved so as to move an application under Section 122C(6) of the Act, for cancellation of allotment in respect of plot in question. He, however, by the same order, of his own motion directed the notices to be issued to the petitioner. It is against the said order, issuing notices to the petitioner that the petitioner is aggrieved and has approached this Court through the present petition for setting aside the same.

(2.) I have heard Shri J. K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri R. N. Gupta, who has put in appearance on behalf of the concerned Gaon Sabha, i.e., opposite party No. 3.

(3.) SHRI R. N. Gupta, in opposition argued that since only notices have been issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 122C(6) therefore, the petition at this Juncture is premature. According to him nothing in the provision bars the Collector from issuing notices under Section 122C(6) for the purposes of inquiring into regularity of allotment. As per his argument there is no illegality or infirmity in the Impugned order, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.