BABU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (for self and for Mahavir Singh, J.) :-By an order dated 15th January, 1976, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hasanpur, district Moradabad respodent no. 2, earmarked certain plots for Harijan Abadi in village Maheshra, Tahsil Hasanpur, District Moradabad. Subsequently, portions of these plots appear to have been allotted to the petitioners for abadi purposes under Rule 115-L of the U. P Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. The petitioners have contended in the writ petition that in pursuance of the allotment made in their favour, they have already made some constructions over the land allotted to them. By a subsequent order dated 28th June, 1976, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure '3' to the writ petition, these allotments were cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer It is this order of the Sub-Divisional Officer which is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

(2.) IT has been urged by counsel for the petitioners on the basis of the facts stated in paragraph 7 of the writ petition that the order of cancellation of Pattas in favour of the petitioners was passed without giving any notice or opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Neither the impugned order nor the counter-affidavit tiled on behalf of the respondents indicate that any notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners. What has been urged by the Standing Counsel is that since a spot enquiry was made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioners had an opportunity to have their say in the matter if they so desired. In regard to the allegations that the petitioners had already made some constructions over the land allotted to them as made in paragraph 8 of the writ petition, the reply in the counter affidavit is that only boundary walls have been made by the petitioners and no further constructions have been made. From the counter-affidavit, at any rate, this is apparent that the petitioners were given possession over the land allotted to them and they have made boundary walls. The question which, therelore, falls for consideration is whether the Sub-Divisional Officer was competent to cancel the Pattas granted to the petitioners without issuing any notice or giving any opportunity of hearing to them. The Standing Counsel on the basis of the counter-affidavit has urged that it was not necessary to do so. We are, however, unable to agree with this submission. Rule 115-P of the UP ZA & LR Rules contains the procedure in regard to the cancellation of the Pattas granted under Rule 115-L and 115-M. Sub-rule (2) is to the effect that the allottee and the Land Management Committee shall be necessary parties to all such cases. Sub-rule (4) provides that the Collector shall call upon all persons interested in the order of allotment to appear and present their cases before him. In view of sub-rule (2) and (4) of Rule 115-P, the Collector could not have cancelled the pattas in favour of the petitioner without arraying the petitioners as parties to the case and calling upon them to present their case before him. Since the Pattas have been cancelled without following the procedure contained in Rule 115-P, the impugned order cannot be sustained.