MEENA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order dated 03.08.1996 was passed by the Additional Collector, Kanpur Dehat whereby the allotment of Patta in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. The other impugned order dated 26.05.2003 was passed by Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur whereby the Revision filed against the order dated 03.08.1996 was dismissed and the third impugned order is dated 13.11.2014 whereby the review application filed by the petitioner was also rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur.

(2.) Shri D.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that plot No.183, measuring area of 0.41, hectare situated in village - Nadihakhurd, Tehsil - Bilhaur, District - Kanpur Nagar was allotted to the petitioner and her name has also been recorded in revenue records on 30.12.1994 as Bhumidhar with non transferable rights. On the basis of complaint filed by one Shravan Kumar for cancellation of Patta, a case was registered under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1950') and a notice dated 06.12.1995 was issued to the petitioner. When the petitioner opted not to appear, the concerned District Collector considered the report of the Tehsildar wherein it was mentioned that before the allotment of Patta, permission of the concerned authority was not taken. Therefore, the Collector passed order dated 03.08.1996 cancelling the said patta.

(3.) The petitioner moved a Revision Petition No.272 of 2002, under Section 333 of the Act of 1950, however, the same was also dismissed by Additional Commissioner Kanpur Division, Kanpur on the ground that at the time of allotment of Patta, the father-in-law of the petitioner was holding the post of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat and in terms of Section 28 (C) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayti Raj Act 1947 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1947') before granting Patta to any relative prior written permission of the concerned Collector was required. However, in the present case, no such permission was taken. The petitioner had also moved a recall application on 18.02.2019 to recall the order dated 26.05.2003 however, the same was rejected on the ground that order dated 26.05.2003 was passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the impugned orders. This Court, vide order dated 23.04.2015 passed the following order:-