JADUNATH SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30th Sept., 1997, passed by the Board of revenue, whereby Board of Revenue has allowed the revision filed by the contesting respondent and set aside the orders dated 13th Dec., 1993 and 19th Dec., 1995 passed by the sub-ordinate authorities.

(2.) The brief facts of the present case are that respondent-land management committee of the village concerned has granted lease of the plot in dispute i.e. plot nos. 587 area 2 acres and 573 area 0.40 acre in favour of petitioner's mother. The respondent no. 2, namely Sarnam Singh, who was since deceased, has now been substituted by his heir Jagat Singh, filed objection before the Collector for cancellation of the aforesaid lease granted to the petitioner's mother on the ground that the mother of the petitioner was not eligible for grant of lease in her favour as the petitioner was employed in Indian Army at the time when the lease of the land in dispute was granted to petitioner's mother. The contesting respondent in his objection stated that he came to know on 15th Dec., 1988 only of the lease granted in favour of petitioner's mother when the petitioner had tried to interfere with their possession and therefore he filed the extract of Khatauni. The Collector on receipt of the aforesaid objection referred it to the Additional Collector for decision on merits. The Additional Collector issued notice to the petitioner as to why the lease granted in favour of his mother be not cancelled as at the time of grant of lease, neither the petitioner's mother, nor the petitioner were eligible for allotment of the land in dispute by the Gaon Sabha. The petitioner filed reply to the aforesaid show cause notice and has taken up a plea that the objectors are not the person aggrieved within the meaning of word "person aggrieved" under Sec. 198 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (In short 'the Act'), therefore no proceeding can be initiated on their behalf for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of petitioner's mother. It further raised a plea that the objection being barred by time as the same has been raised beyond the period prescribed for initiating the proceeding of the cancellation of the lease as contemplated under 'the Act', therefore the application was liable to be dismissed by the Collector and the reference thereof to the Additional Collector by the Collector also deserves to be dismissed. It was further contended that in any view of the matter, since the Collector has not condoned the delay in filing the objection by respondent no. 2, the lease granted in favour of petitioner's mother cannot be cancelled. On merits also, the petitioner has filed evidence and materials that the lease was granted in accordance with law. However, it has not been disputed by the petitioner that on the date when the lease was granted in favour of his mother, neither the petitioner' mother, nor the petitioner were eligible person for grant of lease under Sec. 198 of 'the Act'. The Additional Collector vide order dated 13th Dec., 1993 held that the objection raised by respondent no. 2 Jagat Singh has no merit and has dismissed the same.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order dated 13th Dec., 1993, the contesting respondent filed revision before the Additional Commissioner (P)/revisional Court. The Additional Commissioner vide order dated 19th Dec., 1995 dismissed the revision filed by the contesting respondent. Aggrieved thereby the contesting respondent preferred revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide order impugned in this petition dated 30th Sept., 1997 held that the judgment and order of the Courts below, namely the order of Additional Collector and that of Additional Commissioner suffer from serious error errors of exercise of jurisdiction vested in them by law consequently the revision filed by contesting respondent before the Board of Revenue was allowed and the orders dated 13th Dec., 1993 and 19th Dec., 1995 were set aside and the lease granted in favour of Smt. Dulari widow of Daya Ram by the Gaon Sabha has been cancelled.