JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

Heard Sri K.K. Tiwari and Sri Vimlendra Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.N. Yadav and Sri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the lease holder-private respondent No. 8, Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. The petitioner before this Court has been a complainant in respect of grant of residential leases to various villagers way back in the year 1973.

3. The petitioner vide paragraph 8 to the writ petition has taken specific plea that petitioner's father was one of the eligible persons for the purposes of allotment of the residential lease upon the land which was reserved for persons belonging to the scheduled caste, however, there are certain backward class persons who have been wholly illegally granted lease. In paragraph 8 to the writ petition it has been averred that the petitioner being harijan is entitled to have lease of the land in question. It is argued that grant of residential lease belonging to other backward caste (OBC) was an act of fraud and, therefore, the complaint even if made after lapse of 46 years, it was sufficient enough for exercise of suo motu power under Section 198(4) of the erstwhile U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 or the provisions contained under Section 66 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

4. During the course of the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that father of the petitioner got a small house constructed upon such land and the grievance is that people belonging to the OBC category are interfering with the possession of the petitioner who is now living in that house.

5. Per contra, it is argued by learned counsel appearing for the contesting private respondents, learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that no proceedings could be instituted after lapse of 46 years in respect of the leases granted way back in the year 1973 as the allottees have come to be settled upon the land by raising constructions of their respective houses inasmuch as petitioner was not even born in the year 1973 what to say about his being major to set up any claim of eligibility. It is also argued that nowhere it has come in the pleadings nor, in the complaint that father of the petitioner had ever put up his claim for grant of lease or made any complaint against alleged illegal allotment of residential lease. It is also argued that other complainant Rajendra Babu has never approached the Court.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and their arguments raised across the bar and having perused the complaint made by the petitioner as well as the pleadings raised in the writ petition, I find that the sole ground taken is that the land could not have been allotted to certain persons who did belong to other backward caste. The petitioner who has approached this Court was admittedly born after the year 1973 when the allotment took place and, therefore, the respondents are justified in submitting that the petitioner could not have raised any objection to the allotment proceedings.

7. As far as the father of the petitioner is concerned, the respondents are justified in their argument that nowhere it has come that father of the petitioner ever filed complaint or pursued any matter with the authority. I also find that in the entire pleadings raised before this Court and in the complaint made before the authority concerned, no plea has been taken that father of the petitioner ever set up any claim for allotment, rather I find that during the course of argument the petitioner's counsel admitted that father of the petitioner had raised certain constructions over the abadi land which was reserved for the persons belonging to the scheduled caste.

8. The question of consideration of prayer of petitioner for holding the leases to be illegal after a lapse of nearly 46 years seems to bring about a lost situation al