PARBHU Vs. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR SANT RAVIDAS NAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and contesting respondent No. 4-Mata Saran.

(2.) THE dispute in the instant case relates to plot No. 899. Petitioner claimed that the said plot was allotted by Gaon Sabha to him on 20-5-1964. However, for mutation of his name in the revenue records over the said plot on the basis of said Patta, petitioner filed application in 1989, i. e. after 25 years of alleged allotment. His application was allowed by Tehsildar and his name was mutated. THEreafter, in 1991, respondent No. 4- Mata Saran instituted case No. 444/326/222 of 1991 by filing application against petitioner before Additional Collector, Sant Ravidas Nagar, under Section 198 (4) of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act for cancellation of Patta. Additional Collector through the order dated 24-9-1998 allowed the application and cancelled the Patta. Against the said order petitioner filed revision No. 57 of 1998. Commissioner Vindhyachal Division Mirzapur dismissed the revision on 23-3-2001. Through this writ petition order of the Additional Collector dated 24-9-1998 has been challenged. It is strange that no prayer for setting aside order of revisional Court dated 23-3- 2001 has been made.

(3.) UNDER Section 198 (4) of the Act application for cancellation of Patta may be filed. However, if a case is taken that Patta was in fact never granted then such question cannot be decided in proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act. For cancellation of Patta, proceedings after 25 years may not be maintainable. However, the Supreme Court in U. P. State Sugar Corporation v. D. D. C. , AIR 2000 SC 878, has held that jurisdiction to grant Patta may be seen in consolidation proceedings or regular suit also and proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act are not the only remedy for cancellation of Patta. The fact as to whether Patta was granted or not can be adjudged only in regular suit.