GAJRAJ SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed with a prayer for the quashing of the order dated 20.4.2017 passed by the Additional Collector, Gautam Budh Nagar and the orders dated 8.7.2017 and 20.12.2017 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut.

(2.) The petitioner had filed an application for the cancellation of a patta which was allotted to the mother of respondent nos.4, 5, 6 and 7 namely Smt. Brijesh under section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on the ground that she was not a resident of village Yakubpur as she was married to one Vinod who was a resident of village Sahjabas, Tehsil Sohana, District Gurgaon. It was the case of the petitioner that Smt. Brijesh could not be called a resident of the area at the time when the allotment was made to her in the year 1997 and, therefore, the petitioner who was the applicant in the Court below had stated that since fraudulently the patta with regard to plot no.28 was allotted to the mother of the respondents, the same be cancelled. This application under section 198(4) of the Act was filed in the year 2017. When the case was taken up by the Additional Collector, he looked into the records and found that even though the mother of the respondents Smt. Brijesh had got married to Vinod, she had, after she was deserted by her husband, returned to her parental house at Yakubpur and after having found that there was no fraudulent act on her part, had rejected the application of the petitioner. The Revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 8.7.2017 and thereafter the Review Application filed by him was again dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the voters' list etc. had indicated that the mother of the respondents was residing with her husband in village Sahjabas, Tehsil Sohana, District Gurgaon and, therefore, under section 198(1)(c) of the Act she was not eligible for being given the patta. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the patta was given on the basis of fraud, no limitation would come in the way of filing of the application under section 198(4) of the Act. Further he submitted that since it was writ large that the mother of the respondents was not living in village Yakubpur, she was not an eligible person under section 198(1)(c) of the Act.