JUDGMENT :

Salil Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard the Counsel for the petitioners.

2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 14.9.2005 passed by the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Gautam Budh Nagar, i.e., respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Additional Collector') in Case No. 26 of 2005 registered under section 198(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950') cancelling the allotments made in favour of the petitioners as well as against the order dated 6.2.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P., Circuit Court, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as, 'Board of Revenue') passed in Revision No. 2ZA(M)/2005-06 filed by the petitioners against the order passed by the Additional Collector.

3. Through his order dated 14.9.2005, the Additional Collector has cancelled the allotments made in favour of the petitioners on the ground that the said allotments could not have been made by the Gaon Sabha as the land was resumed by the State Government through Notification Nos. 94/8-52-94 dated 13.1.1995 and 1165/8-46-92-94 dated 14.2.1995, and therefore, the Gaon Sabha had no power to allot the disputed plots to the petitioners. The land was resumed for allotment to the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.R.P.F.'). vide his order dated 14.9.2005 the Additional Collector has cancelled the allotments also on the ground that the disputed plots were illegally allotted to the petitioners, who were not landless agricultural labours and were related to the members of the Land Management Committee and further the allotments were made without following the procedure prescribed in Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules, 1952').

4. It was argued by the Counsel for the petitioners that the notifications issued under section 117(6) of the Act, 1950 were not given effect to by the State Government as the C.R.P.F. had never established its unit over the disputed plots, and therefore, the notification had become redundant. It was argued that no compensation was paid to the Gaon Sabha after the aforesaid notifications by the State Government under section 117(6) of the Act, 1950, and therefore, the land remain vested in the Gaon Sabha. It was further argued that the notification under section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') was issued on 30.9.1980 and the notification under section 52 of the Act, 1953 was issued on 12.12.2010. After the order approving the allotments made in favour of the petitioners were passed on 16.2.2003 and 31.3.2003, the name of the petitioners were recorded in the consolidation records in a case registered under section 12 of the Act, 1953 and consequential entries were made in C.H. Form 11, C.H. Form 41 and C.H. Form 45, and therefore, the claim of the State Government was barred by section 11-A of the Act, 1953. It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 14.9.2005 passed by the Additional Collector was without jurisdiction and contrary to law and therefore liable to be set aside.

5. I have considered the submission of the Counsel for the petitioners.

6. The existence of Notification Nos. 94/8-52-94 dated 13.1.1995 and 1165/8-46-92-94 dated 14.2.1995 issued under section 117(6) of the Act, 1950 has not been disputed by the petitioners. The existence of the said notifications were not disputed during the course of the argument and a perusal of the writ petition shows that the existence of the said notifications have also not been disputed by the petitioners in the writ petition. It has been stated in the writ petition that no compensation was paid to the Gaon Sabha as a result of the notifications issued under section 117(6) of the Act, 1950 and the notifications had become redundant because no unit of the C.R.P.F. was established over the disputed plots as a consequence