RAJA BHAIYA Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri J.N. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.V. Mohan holding brief of Sri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3.

(2.) The land in dispute was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1967 by the Gaon Sabha, on the basis of which his name came to be mutated in the revenue records vide order dated 22.3.1972 by the Pargana Adhikari, Banda. In the year 1974 proceedings under Sec. 122-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act (for short 'the Act') were initiated against the petitioner which were dismissed vide order dated 30.4.1974 and the notices were discharged. Subsequently, after lapse of about 13 years on a report submitted by the Tehsildar, Banda dated 28.1.1987 proceedings under Sec. 198 of the Act were initiated against the petitioner for cancellation of the patta. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Administration), Banda vide order dated 16.11.1988 cancelled the patta on the ground that at the time of allotment the petitioner was already having large area of land and thus he had land more than the prescribed limit and as such the allotment was illegal. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing revision. Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi found that the petitioner was not served with proper notice under Sec. 198 (4) of the Act and without there being any evidence on record the Court below wrongly held that the petitioner has land more than the prescribed limit and made a recommendation to the Board of Revenue to allow the revision. Respondent No. 1-Board of Revenue vide order dated 28.1.1992 though accepted the reference and allowed the revision but directed the Trial Court to initiate proceedings afresh after giving notice to the parties. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) It has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings initiated for cancellation of patta after lapse of 13 years were beyond the period of limitation prescribed for initiating the proceedings for cancellation of patta and thus were patently without jurisdiction and without considering this aspect of the mater, the Board of Revenue has wrongly and illegally directed to initiate fresh proceedings after issuing notice to the petitioner.