Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner today. Let the same be taken on record.

2. Heard Sri S.C. Verma, alongwith Miss Neelam Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel Sri Pankaj Rai for the State-respondents and Sri Kaushal Kishore Mishra for Respondent Nos. 6 to 86.

3. The submission of Sri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner is basically that by virtue of provisions of Rule 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952 after selection for admission to the land the Land Management Committee has to prepare a list and it has to be forwarded to the Assistant Collector, In-charge of the sub-division, who on receipt of the documents should scrutinize the decision taken by the Land Management Committee and if he is satisfied that the decision of the Committee is in accordance with the Act and the Rules he shall record his approval on the list in Z.A. Form-57B and return the papers to the Land Management Committee within a week of its receipt with the direction that possession may be delivered to the lessee and report of mutation be submitted to Supervisor Kanoongo by the Lekhpal after delivery of possession.

4. According to him admittedly in the present case resolution of the Land Management Committee was made on 13.7.1996 and approval to the resolution relating to the Respondent Nos. 6 to 86 was given on 6.4.1997. Sri Verma states that it is clear violation of Rule 176(4) and hence the impugned orders rejecting the application under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for cancellation of the said pattas cannot be upheld. Sri Verma has referred to the submission made by the District Government Counsel (Revenue) as recorded in the impugned order in support of his submission :

vr% mDr ds lac/k esa ftyk 'kkldh; vf/koDrk jktLo xkSrecq/kuxj dh cgl lquh x;h us rdZ fd;k fd vkcaVu djrs le; fu;e 173 rk 178 dk ikyu ugh fd;k x;k gSA vik= O;fDr;ksa dks vkcaVu djrs le; fu;e 173 rk 178 dk ikyu ugh fd;k x;k gSA vik= O;fDr;ksa dks vkoaVu fd;k x;k gSA vf/kdkj vkcaVh ds ikl Hkwfe gSA vkcaVu ckgj ds O;fDr;ksa dks Hkh fd;k x;k gSA vkcaVu esa vfu;ferrk cjrh x;h gSA blfy;s xzke QySnk dk izzLrko fnukad 13-7-1996 o Lohd`r fnukad 6-4-1997 fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA

5. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that in another writ petition filed by the persons whose patta had earlier been cancelled and who were found to be unsuitable persons a counter-affidavit was filed by the State-respondents in Writ Petition No. 21208 of 2008, ‘’Brij Pal and another v. State of U.P. and others’ on 5.12.2009 and which relates to the same land the stand of the State was clearly averred in paragraph 5 and 6 of the counter-affidavit which is available on the record of this writ petition as an annexure in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioners.

6. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the counter-affidavit of the State are quoted hereunder:

5. That the counter-affidavit of paragraphs 5 and 6 of the writ petition are not correct as stated, as such, denied. It is stated that Addl. Collector, (F&R) Gautam Buddh Nagar has issued proper notice to the petitioners, thereafter cancelled the lease which was not been granted to the eligible persons and also not followed the provisions and proceedings of Rule 173 to 178 of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act specially on the ground that the aforesaid patta has been granted on the basis of forged and fabricated proceedings to the some of the lease holders they are big agriculturists and some of the belonging to the out side of the concerned village. It is further stated that some persons have residing in the City and belong to the higher community.

6. That the contents of paragraphs 8 to 14 of the writ petition are not correct as stated, as such, denied. It is stated that the Addl. Collector (F&R) Gautam Buddh Nagar i.e. respondent Nos. 2 and 3 both the Courts below have cancelled the lease of the petitioners specially on the ground that the lease has been granted in f