PAPPU Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, GORAKHPUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears that certain land were declared as surplus under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960. The land was allotted to respondent nos. 5 to 9 under Sec. 27 (3) of the Act. The petitioner filed an application under Sec. 27 (4) of the Act for cancellation of the said allotment. This application was filed before the Commissioner on 6.8.1999. The Additional Commissioner by his impugned order dated 16.11.2002 has rejected the application on the ground that the period of limitation for filing such an application for cancellation under Sec. 27 (6) of the Act is five years from the date of allotment and the application was not not filed within time. It has been found that the resolution for allotment of the land in favour of the respondents was made on 19.11.1992 by the Land Management Committee and it was approved by the Pargana Adhikari on 31.7.1993. It has also been found that CLH Form 36 has been issued and is entered at sl. no. 41 to 45 and that the said form is not proved to be forged. The finding is one of fact and not proved to be vitiated by any error of law. It has also been observed by the Commissioner that in case the entries are made on the basis of forgery without there being any patta no application for cancellation of a non existent patta would lie and the forged entries, they can be expunged in accordance with law. The petitioner's case is that the land was declared surplus for the first time on 31.3.1995. However, it appears that the land was originally declared surplus in the year 1977 but that order was later on set aside and the land was again declared surplus. In paragraph no.8 of the writ petition it has been alleged that the petitioner had applied for cancellation of the allotment and approval order dated 31.7.1993. Thus from this fact it appears that the application of the petitioner was not moved within time. Moreover the petitioner claims to be resident of the Village. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not refer to any material to indicate that the petitioner was an eligible person and he wanted to allotment of the land for himself. The petitioner therefore does not have any locus standi to challenge the allotment. No ground for interference has been made out.

(2.) The petition is disposed of. Order Accordingly.