JUDGMENT :

SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Shri Madhup Narain Shukla, counsel for the petitioner, Shri Azad Rai and Shri Siddharth Saran, counsel for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 20.11.2017 passed by the Collector, Sant Kabir Nagar in Case No. D-201717650483 registered at the instance of the petitioner under Section 128 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as Code, 2006) for cancelling the allotment of Plot No. 64M (0.0126 Hec.) made in favour of respondent nos. 5 and 6 as well as against the order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Basti Division, Basti rejecting the Revision (Case No. 851 of 2017 Computerized Case No. C-20171700851) registered under Section 210 of Code, 2006 against the order dated 20.11.2017.

3. The petitioner had instituted Case No. D-201717650483 before the Collector, Sant Kabir Nagar alleging that the allotment made in favour of the respondents was made without any resolution by the Land Management Committee and without any public proclamation and was, therefore, not in accordance with law because the procedure as prescribed under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1950) and the Rules made thereunder had not been followed. It was further contended by the petitioner that he and certain other villagers had planted their trees on the said plot which were still there and the petitioner and the said villagers were in possession of the plot and thus the plot was not vacant and, therefore, could not have been allotted under Section 195 of the Act, 1950.

4. During the proceedings in Case No. D-201717650483, the Tahsildar submitted a report 26.9.2017 wherein he admitted that the land was not fit for cultivation and the plot was in the form of grove. The Tahsildar denied the allegation of the petitioner that the allotment was made without following the Rules. The respondents also contested the case of the petitioner and denied all the pleas made by the petitioner in his application registering Case No. D-201717650483.

5. The Collector vide his order dated 20.11.2017 dismissed Case No. D-201717650483. In his order dated 20.11.2017 the Collector held that the allotment had been approved on 3.3.2008 because the respondents were scheduled caste and eligible for allotment under the Act, 1950. In his order dated 20.11.2017, the Collector also held that the petitioner was not an aggrieved person and therefore, the case registered under Section 128 of the Code, 2006 was not maintainable. It also transpires from a reading of the order dated 20.11.2017 that the Collector had himself personally inspected the plot in presence of the parties as well as the local Lekhpal and the Revenue Inspector and found that the respondents were in possession of the plot and were using it for agricultural purposes. The petitioner alleges that the Collector had not inspected the plots and no spot memo was prepared by the Collector. However, because the fact of inspection or preparation of spot memo are not relevant for a decision of the writ petition, therefore, the Court is not entering into the said factual controversy.

6. Against the order passed by the Collector, the petitioner filed a Revision before the Commissioner under Section 210 of Code, 2006. A perusal of memorandum of revision shows that in the Revision the petitioner did not raise the plea that the allotment was made without any public proclamation or without any resolution by the Land Management Committee. In his revision, the petitioner mainly raised the plea that the respondents were not landless agricultural labourers and that the trees had been planted by the petitioner on the disputed plot, the plot was in the form of grove and in the possession of the petitioner and, therefore, could not be allotted as it was not a vacant land.

7. The Commissioner dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner vide his order dated 24.10.2019.

8. While cha