BAL CHANDRA Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.

(2.) It transpires from the records that Case No. 622/1979-80 was registered in the court of Additional District Magistrate, Lalitpur under Section 198(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950) on the ground that the lease of 6 acre land in favour of the petitioner was contrary to law in as much as the total land in possession of the petitioner after the aforesaid allotment was more than 15 acre and the said allotment was made without following the procedure prescribed under Rules 172 to 176 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereafter referred to as, 'Rules, 1952'). The Additional District Magistrate, Lalitpur vide his order dated 30.10.1986 cancelled the allotment of lease made in favour of the petitioner regarding 6 acres on Plot Nos. 596 and 597. The aforesaid order was passed on the ground that the allotment was made in favour of the petitioner without following the procedure prescribed under Rules 173 to 176 of the Rules, 1952 and the aforesaid allotment exceeded the limit of 15 acres prescribed in the rules. Against the order dated 30.10.1986 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Lalitpur, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 333 (1) of the Act, 1950 registering Revision No. 127/14 of 1987-88 which was heard and dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Jhansi vide his order dated 6.9.1991. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another revision before the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad registering Revision No. 4 of 1991-9 Revision No. 4 of 1991-92 was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 25.5.1995. In their orders dated 6.9.1991 and 25.5.1995, the revisonal courts have upheld the findings recorded by the Additional District Magistrate, Lalitpur. The orders dated 30.10.1986, 6.9.1991 and 25.5.1995 passed by respondent nos. 3, 2 and 1, respectively have been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) It has been argued by counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act, 1950 were time barred as the allotment in favour of the petitioner was made in 1965 and therefore beyond the time prescribed in Section 198(6) of the Act, 1950 for cancellation of allotment and thus the order dated 30.10.1986 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Lalitpur was without jurisdiction and is liable to be set-aside. Consequently, the orders dated 6.9.1991 and 25.5.1995 passed by the revisional courts upholding the order of Additional Commissioner are also liable to be set-aside.