JUDGMENT :

Salil Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard the Counsel for the parties.

2. The facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 5 to 13 and certain other persons were allotted agricultural plots in pursuance to the proposal of the concerned Land Management Committee made in a meeting held on 15.6.1989. The Collector, Mainpuri, i.e., respondent No. 2, on his own motion, instituted an inquiry regarding the allotment and Case No. 707/2006-07 under section 198(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was registered in the Court of respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 vide his order dated 13.3.2008 cancelled the allotments on the ground that the records of the proceedings did not reveal the date of the public proclamation made for the said purpose under Rule 173 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereafter referred to as, 'Rules, 1952') and further that the allotments were made six months after the list of eligible candidates had been prepared by the Land Management Committee. In his order dated 13.3.2008, the respondent No. 2 held that the aforesaid shortcomings in the allotment proceedings indicate that the allotment proceedings were suspicious and, therefore, the allotments were liable to be cancelled and no further inquiry was required to be made. Aggrieved by order dated 13.3.2008, the allottees filed Revision Nos. 121, 104, 151 and 155 of 2007-08 before the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad which have been allowed by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 12.12.2013 and through its aforesaid order, the Board of Revenue has set-aside the order dated 13.3.2008 passed by the Collector. The order dated 12.12.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue has been challenged in the present writ petition.

3. There is no error in the order dated 12.12.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue so far as it holds that merely because the records of the proceedings do not reveal the date on which the public proclamation was made and that the allotments were made six months after the eligibility list was prepared by the Land Management Committee the allotment proceedings shall not be vitiated. In view of the aforesaid, the challenge to the order dated 12.12.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue so far as it holds that the grounds stated by the Collector in his order dated 13.3.2008 were not sufficient to cancel the allotments made in pursuance to the resolution of the Land Management Committee is liable to be rejected.

4. However, it is apparent from the records that the Collector, on his own motion, instituted an inquiry to consider the validity of the allotment proceedings also on the ground that complaints were made that the persons who had been allotted plots were not resident of the village and some of them were also not resident of the revenue division in which the village was situated. The Collector, in his order dated 13.3.2008, did not record any finding on the aforesaid issue as in his aforesaid order, the Collector held that the allotment proceedings were vitiated because of violation of Rules 173 and 174 of the Rules, 1952 and, therefore, no inquiry was required regarding other objections to the allotments. In case, the Board of Revenue did not agree with the reasons given by the Collector in his order dated 13.3.2008 to set-aside the allotments, it was appropriate that the matter should have been remanded back to the Collector to pass fresh orders after recording findings on the issue regarding the eligibility of the allottees. For the aforesaid reason, it would be appropriate that in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, both the orders dated 12.12.2013 and 13.3.2008 passed by the Board of Revenue as well as the Collector, Mainpuri are quashed and the matter be remanded back to the Collector, Mainpuri to pass fresh orders in the case after recording a finding on the dispute regarding the eligibility of the allot