MEGH RAJ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHITLA Pd. Srivastava, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 30th July, 1988, passed by the respondent No. 2.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that when second notice was given, the irrigated land of the petitioner was increased and the land of the petitioner came in the command area which was stated by Lakhpal Bhagwati Prasad and Miya Deen who prepared the notice on the basis of the relevant Khasras and as plots were shown to be irrigated in khasraof 1387, 1388and 1389 Fasli, therefore, the finding of the respon dents are correct finding.