Point of law: Whenever the Land Management Committee intends to admit any person to land under Section 195 or 197, it shall announce by beat of drum in the circle of the Gaon Sabha in which the land is situate at least seven days before the date of meeting for admission of land, the numbers of plots, their areas and the date on which admission thereto is to be made

JUDGMENT :

Sangeeta Chandra, J.

1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Upendra Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Sri M.E. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.11.2009 passed by the Chief Revenue Officer/ Collector, Faizabad, Ayodhya and the order dated 07.01.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya, rejecting the Revision filed by the petitioners.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the Land Management Committee of Gaon Sabha Chandipur Nagahara, Pargana Paschim Rath, Tehsil Bikapur, District Faizabad, made a proposal for grant of agricultural lease in favour of 134 persons including the petitioners herein, and the said proposal was approved by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Bikapur on 30.03.2002. The petitioner no.2-Sukhraj and the predecessor-in-interest of petitioner nos.4, 5 and 6 Ramesh Kumar being members of the Land Management Committee were granted permission from the Collector Faizabad for grant of lease as is required under Section 28 (C) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1947").

4. It has been submitted that in pursuance of such proposal, the petitioner no.1 was granted lease on Gata No.902 of 0.150 hectare, the petitioner nos.2 and 3 were granted lease on Gata No.902 on an area of 0.01 hectare, the petitioner no.4 and the father of the petitioner nos.5 and 6 were also granted lease on plot no.902 and 0.015 hectare only. Possession was delivered in July, 2002.

5. The grandfather and father of the respondent no.5 and Ram Jag filed a case for cancellation of lease under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1950") before the respondent no.3 which was dismissed on 19.08.2002. A recall application was moved which was also rejected on 02.09.2002. The respondent no.5 thereafter himself filed an application for cancellation of patta on 03.10.2007 under Section 198(4) of the Act, 1950. The respondent no.3 called for a report from the Tehsil official and on receipt of the same on 12.04.2008, notice was issued to the petitioners. The petitioners filed objections on 01.05.2009 saying that earlier also in similar proceedings for cancellation of patta, the case of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent no.5 had been rejected and that the application for cancellation of patta given on 30.03.2002 after the period of five years six months on 03.01.2017 without any application for condonation of delay was not maintainable under the provisions of Section 198 (6)(b) of the Act of 1950.

6. Nevertheless, the order dated 30.11.2009 was passed by the Chief Revenue Officer saying that petitioners were ineligible to be granted patta in the first place and also saying that the land in question i.e. plot no.902 had been inspected by him personally and it had been found that the land is not fit for cultivation as it has trees standing thereon and also as two graves. In the Revision filed by the petitioners, the petitioners had taken specific ground regarding maintainability of the application for cancellation of patta filed by the respondent no.5, therefore, at the initial stage the Revision was entertained and stay of opertation of the order passed by the Chief Revenue Officer was granted on 11.12.2009. The petitioners continued to remain in possession and cultivated the land in question but later on the Revision was dismissed on 07.01.2021.

7. Hence this petition has been filed.

8. It is the case of the petitioners that the Chief Revenue Officer did not consider the objections regarding maintainability of the second application for the same cause of action and also did not consider the question of limitation under sub-clause 6 of Section 198. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to a judgment rendered by a Member