Hon’ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.—Heard Sri B. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Sri R.B. Yadav for the Gaon Sabha and Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, who has filed caveat on behalf of respondent No. 6.

2. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and has been filed challenging the order dated 1.10.2012 passed by the Collector and the order dated 18.9.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue.

3. The Collector by his order has cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioners, which order has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue in revision, hence this writ petition.

4. It appears that a resolution was passed on 22.7.2004 for allotment in favour of the petitioners, which was approved by the S.D.M. on 30.7.2014. The allotment was of land situated in Village Tejsinghpur, Pargana and Tehsil Bhadohi, District Sant Ravidas Nagar. An application for cancellation of this lease was filed by respondents 5 to 10 in the writ petition. This application was filed on the ground that the allotments have been made without following the procedure prescribed and was in favour of persons, who were not eligible for allotment in their favour. The entire proceedings were done surreptitiously and the allotment was in favour of village strongman ‘The land allotted was not vacated on the spot and trees and houses existed thereon and it was in the shape of Abadi’ ‘There was total non compliance of Rules 173 to 178 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. It was lastly alleged that the concerned Lekhpal was one Dinesh Lal, but the report obtained prior to the allotment was by one Rajendra Prasad Vishwakarma, who was not the concerned Lekhpal, which also vitiated the proceedings for allotment.

5. At the instance of the contesting respondents, an enquiry report was called for, which was duly submitted and relying upon the same and after hearing the allottees, the Collector by the order dated 1.10.2014, cancelled the allotment.

6. The order of cancellation records that the allottees had tried to usurp the pasture land and land recorded as pond. It was also recorded that the allottees were owners of agricultural land, possessed Pakka houses and tractors as also pump set and, therefore, were not eligible persons. It was also recorded that Lal Bahadur Bind and his parents had been allotted agricultural lease of Plot Nos. 177 and 93, which was, in fact, land reserved for Abadi and, therefore, the same could not have been the subject-matter of allotment. The proceedings had been got completed after obtaining report of a Lekhpal, who was not the Lekhpal of the area, wherein the allotted land was situated and the concerned Lekhpal of the area namely, Dinesh Lal, had no notice or information of the proceedings. The agenda and munadi was of the same date. It was lastly recorded that the preparation of the eligibility list was vitiated and illegal, and the entire proceedings were an attempt to usurp Gaon Sabha property.

7. While cancelling the allotment, the Collector also directed that a First Information Report be lodged against the concerned officials as also the beneficiaries, who had colluded in the said illegal allotment.

8. The Additional Collector while affirming this order has reiterated the findings returned by the Collector.

9. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allotment had been made on a resolution passed by the Gram Sabha Kaida. This Gram Sabha consists of several villages including the village in question, namely, Tejsinghpur. The Lekhpal, namely, Rajendra Prasad Vishwakarma, on whose report, the allotment proceedings had been drawn, was a Lekhpal of area falling within the jurisdiction of Gram Sabha Kaida and, therefore, he was competent to have made the report and the view to the contrary taken by the Courts below is therefore unsustainable. He has relied upon the provi