KALIKA PRASAD Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 15.02.2001 and 30.07.1996 passed by Board of Revenue in Reference No. 96 of 1996-97 and Additional Collector (Administration) Kanpur Dehat (hereinafter referred to as respondent no.2) in case no.140/95-96 under Rule 115-P of U.P.Z.A and L.R. Rules. Vide order dated 30.07.1996 the respondent no.2 has rejected the application of the petitioner dated 01.12.1993 for cancelling the allotment of abadi site over an area measuring about 10 biswansi situated in plot no. 267 which old number happened to be 322 and by subsequent order dated 15.02.2001 the Member Board of Revenue has rejected the reference made by Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division Kanpur while exercising his Revisional power under Section 333 of U.P. Zaminadari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,1950 ( in short U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act ) in Revision No. 40/96-97 Kalika Prasad and others v. Brijendra Kumar and others. The Revision was filed against the judgment and order dated 30.07.1996.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this case are that an area of 10 biswansi situated in plot no. 267 was allotted to the respondent no.5 for abadi site by the respondent no.4 i.e., Land Management Committee. THE petitioners have filed an application for cancellation of the said allotment under Section 122-C (6) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act read with Rule 115-P of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules on the ground that the allotted area was given by the Zamindar to the petitioners since before the abolition of Zamindari for plantation of the trees and over the disputed land more than 50 years old trees belonging to the petitioners are standing and the land was not vacant, therefore, no allotment could be made. It has also been stated that the allotment was irregular as the respondent no.5 do not fall under the eligibility criteria and the procedure prescribed under the rules for allotment has also not been followed. THE said application was rejected by the Collector by the impugned order dated 30.07.1996 on the ground that the land is recorded as banjer in the revenue record and the possession of the petitioners over the disputed land, prima facie appears to be unauthorised. It has also been held that the petitioners have no right over the land in dispute. Since the allotment in favour of respondent no.5 was made in accordance with law, therefore, that cannot be cancelled in this proceeding.

(3.) SRI V.C. SRIvastava, learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the aforesaid orders have made following submissions: