Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

2. The petitioners are the lease holders of surplus land left out in ceiling proceedings. In pursuance to the resolution of the Gram Sabha dated 17.9.1997 (Annexure-1), land in question was allotted to the petitioners and other persons (in total, 18 in number). The allotment was duly approved by the Pargana Adhikari on 6.6.1998 and in consequence thereof, the possession of lease land was given to the petitioners. The respondents 5 to 10 had filed an application under sub-section (4) of Section 198 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short, Act) with the allegation that the lease has been granted to the relatives of the village Pradhan and his associates. It was stated by the complainant in their complaint (Annexure-2) that the lease land is being used for public purpose in the form of Khalihan covered by trees. A plea was also taken that the land has already been given for residential purpose and the Gram Sabha has allotted the land without following the procedure prescribed by Gram Sabha Manual. Six complainants who were members of Land Management Committee have stated that no notice was served upon them with regard to meeting. It was also alleged that a complaint was given to the District Magistrate on 10.6.1998 with the submission that the lease land could not have been allotted to the petitioners and other persons. While moving application, the respondents prayed that the lease may be cancelled and the land in question should be allotted to eligible persons.

3. After hearing the parties, the Collector, Kaushambi by the impugned order dated 30.7.2003 had cancelled the lease with the finding that the lease was not allotted by following due procedure of law and according to the affidavit filed by six members of the Land Management Committee, they were not aware with the resolution of the Gram Sabha with regard to allotment of lease. Learned Collector further held that the land in question has been allotted to friends and relatives of village Pradhan in violation of the provisions contained in Section 28-C of Panchayat Raj Act. However, no evidence was led to establish that the petitioners-lease holders were members of one family.

4. A revision was preferred by the petitioners against the order passed by the Collector, Kaushambi on the ground that the lease holders are members of different family unit and revisionists No. 1 to 3 Lallu, Chhammi and Shanker belong to scheduled caste category and are landless labour. It was also stated before the revisional authority that even if the lease holders are related to Pradhan, it shall not render the lease illegal because of the fact that all are residing separately in the same village. It was also stated before the revisional authority that the Gram Sabha had passed the resolution in its open meeting for grant of lease. The revisional authority, by order dated 21.12.2004 (Annexure 5) has dismissed the revision on the ground that the lease has been granted to the members of family of village Pradhan without having prior permission from the Collector and the procedure given in the Gram Sabha Manual under Rules 173 to 176 has not been followed. The members were not informed with regard to the meeting. The review filed by the petitioners too was dismissed by subsequent order dated 12.5.2006. Feeling aggrieved, present writ petition has been preferred.

5. While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that all the members of Gram Sabha were present in its meeting. The petitioners’ counsel has invited attention of this Court to the photostat copy of the resolution (Annexure-1) of the Gram Sabha to point out that it contains the names of all 18 allottees. It has also been stated that the procedure given in the Gram Sabha Manual was duly complied with while passing the resolution for the purpos