RAM DAS Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, LUCKNOW AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vineet Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and Sri Ghanshyam, holding brief of Sri Kamlesh Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7.

(2.) Under challenge in this petition is an order dated 30th November, 2000, passed by the Additional Collector (Administration), Lucknow whereby the lease granted in favour of the petitioner under Section 195/198 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has been cancelled to the extent of an area of 1 bigha. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 30.07.2007 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow whereby the revision petition preferred by him against the order dated 30.11.2000, passed by the Additional Collector was dismissed.

(3.) The petitioner in the year 1976 is said to have been allotted certain portion of land on lease. The lease granted to the petitioner pertained to Plot No. 254-Sa, admeasuring 2 bigha, 10 biswa, Plot No. 387-Sa, having an area of 3 biswa, 4 biswansi and Plot No. 392-Sa, having an area of 1 bigha, 10 biswa, 16 biswansi, situate in Village Dhawan, Tehsil and District Lucknow. However, on the basis of the said lease the name of the petitioner, it appears that, could not be recorded in the revenue records and accordingly on some complaint the matter appears to have been examined by the Additional Collector (Administration), Lucknow who in exercise of his power under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act cancelled the lease said to have been granted in favour of the petitioner, vide its order dated 8th February, 1982. The petitioner challenged the said order dated 8th February, 1982 by filing a revision petition before the revisional court under Section 333 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 15th February, 1990. The petitioner thereafter challenged the said order by filing a second revision petition before the Board of Revenue which was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 26.05.1993.