The main legal point established is that the cancellation of allotment and expunging of the petitioner's name from the revenue records can be upheld if there is a lack of evidence to support the allotment and the petitioner's claim.

Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the orders passed by the revenue authorities in expunging the name of the petitioner from the revenue records on the ground that allotment made in the name of the petitioner alongwith other 141 allotments was a forged exercise of which no record is available in the office of Registrar Kanoongo of Tehsil Khurja.

3. Challenging these orders, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no proceeding under Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act has been initiated for cancellation of allotment nor any proceeding had been undertaken for correction of revenue records. The application dated 19.3.2015 moved by the petitioner for restoration of the entries made in the name of the petitioner and for recall of the order dated 14.2.2000 had illegally been rejected on the ground that no record of allotment was available.

4. It is contended that the order dated 14.2.2000 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khurja for cancellation of entries in the revenue records of the name of the petitioner has been quashed vide judgment and order dated 26.5.2010 passed in Writ-C No. 31282 of 2010 (Smt. Chandravati vs. State of U.P. and others) filed by the petitioner.

5. From a perusal of the order passed by this Court dated 26.5.2010, it is apparent that the order dated 14.2.2000 was challenged only on the ground that it was an ex-parte order and no opportunity was given to the petitioner before expunging her name. The basis of order dated 14.2.2000 was also that the record of allotment was not traceable.

6. In view of the above, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceeding undertaken for cancellation of entries treating as forged entries were without jurisdiction, is not acceptable as no such ground has been taken in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner in the year 2010. Further it is clear that the order dated 12.7.2016 has been passed pursuant to the judgment and order dated 26.5.2010 passed by this Court.

7. Second ground of objection taken by the petitioner is that one Sondei was also allotted a plot in the same proceeding which was held in favour of the petitioner and her name was initially cancelled vide order dated 24.2.2000. The name of Sondei, however, had been retained in the revenue records vide order dated 8.4.2009.

8. A perusal of the order dated 8.4.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Khurja, shows that Sondei wife of Jaipal Singh had executed a sale deed in favour of one Suresh Singh and Sanjay Singh sons of Virendra Singh. In the cancellation proceeding undertaken against Sondei and Suresh Singh, it was recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khurja that name of Sondei was recorded in 1406-1411 fasli as Bhumidhar with transferable right. On the basis of sale deed dated 28.12.1998 executed by Sondei, it was held that the said entries have been made by the then Tehsildar after making an inspection of the records and as such the entries in the name of Sondei could not be treated as forged entries.

9. However, in the said order, nothing has been recorded regarding the records of allotment in the name of Sondei and as such, no benefit can be derived by the petitioner on the basis of the order dated 8.4.2009.

10. So far as the order dated 12.7.2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Khurja is concerned, it is categorically recorded therein that a report dated 14.2.2000 was submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer after perusal of the first report submitted by Tehsildar, Khurja with regard to 142 allotments and it was categorically recorded therein that the records of allotment was not available in the office of Registrar Kanoongo in Tehsil Khurja. As no record of allotment was available, the entries made in the name of the petitioner were found forged.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to challenge these findings rec