JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. Pratima Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Sri Hari Narain Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.6.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner belong to scheduled caste community. Petitioner’s father Mewa Lal along with sixteen others, was granted lease for agriculture purpose in the year 1975 in respect to plot no.107M, area 0.256 hectare and plot no.232 M, area 0.154 hectare, the name of petitioner’s father has been recorded in the revenue records, accordingly, petitioner father came in possession of disputed plot and started agriculture in the same. Petitioner was paying irrigation charges also as per provision. In the year 1994, Lekhpal submitted a report on 3.9.1994 that petitioner’s father is not doing agriculture for that last two years, accordingly, recommendation was made for taking action under Rule 61, under Section 186 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. Petitioner’s father filed his objection on 14.9.1994 to the proceeding initiated under Section 186 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, stating that he is doing agriculture in the plot in dispute and the crops are standing in the same.