DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINEET Saran, J. On 12-12-1975 the plot in dispute was declared surplus under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. Then on 6-3-1976 the Land Management Committee allotted one Bigha each from the said plot to Kripa (grand-father of the petitioner) and two other persons. On 19-11-1977, the Sub- Divisional Officer granted approval and thereafter the names of the allottees were recorded in the revenue records. After the death of the said Kripa in 1991, the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records. However, on 18-5-1993 a notice is said to have been issued to Kripa for cancellation of the lease of the plot granted in his favour. It is note worthy that the said Kripa had already expired on that date and the name of the petitioner had already been entered in the revenue records. However, by order dated 23-9-1993 passed by respondent No. 2, the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Meerut Division, Meerut, the lease granted in favour of Kripa was cancelled. On coming to know of the same, on 9-2-1994 the petitioner filed an application for recalling the order dated 23- 9-1993. The said application was rejected on 30-3-1994, which order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 17693 of 1994 and by judgment dated 30-1-1996, the order rejecting the restoration application was quashed and the matter was remanded for deciding the restoration application afresh. Without deciding the restoration application, the respondent No. 2 again, by order dated 13-7-1998, cancelled the lease of the petitioner. The said order was again challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 32003 of 1998 and by an interim order dated 7-10-1998, the operation of the order dated 13-7-1998 was stayed, with liberty to the Commissioner to dispose of the application of the petitioner dated 9-2-1994 for recall of the order dated 23-9-1993. Thereafter the respondent No. 2 on 8- 4-1999, recalled the order dated 13-7-1998 and then on 18-5-1999, recalled the earlier cancellation order dated 23-9-1993 also and proceeded to decide the case on merits. By the order dated 22-1- 2002 the respondent No. 2 has passed a fresh order cancelling the lease granted in favour of the petitioner, which has been impugned in this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard Sri A. K. Aditya and Sri A. K. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

(3.) EVEN otherwise, in the impugned order it has been stated that the land which was allotted to the petitioner for agriculture use was being used for building houses and hence the lease was being cancelled. In the same order itself it has been mentioned that there is no construction on the said land and thus the very ground on which the notice had been issued to the petitioner on 18-5-1993 that buildings were being constructed on the said land does not have any basis.