The patta granted under the Government Scheme for vasectomy operation was upheld, emphasizing the importance of compliance with the relevant provisions and the lack of valid grounds for cancellation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Ambuj Srivastava, Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ayank Mishra, Counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 8, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. K.K. Mani Counsel for respondent No.5.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioners along with 38 others were granted patta in the year 1987 by the Gram Sabha, which was duly approved by the competent authority in the year 1987. On the basis of patta granted to the petitioners, the name of the petitioners as well as 38 others patta holders were recorded in the revenue record and all the patta holders including petitioners came in possession over the allotted land since 1987. One Private complaint has been filed by respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 which was registered as case No.198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act against the petitioners and 38 others patta holders. A report was called for from Naib Tehsildar Gangoh, District-Saharanpur, who submitted his report dated 12th July, 1988, in which it is mentioned that Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:28900 petitioners were granted patta on the ground of the vasectomy operation. It is also mentioned in the report that complaint filed by respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 is baseless and liable to be dismissed. Additional Collector Saharanpur (respondent No.4) heard the case under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A& L.R. Act and vide order dated 31.05.1993 allowed the patta cancellation application filed by private respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 in respect of petitioners only while in respect to other 38 patta holders the patta cancellation application was rejected. Against the order dated 31.05.1993 petitioners filed a revision before Commissioner which was registered as Revision No.124 of 1992-93 and was heard by Additional was Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut. Additional Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut (respondent No.3) dismissed the petitioner's revision vide order dated 30th April, 1994. Against the order dated 30th April, 1994, petitioners filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, which was registered as Revision No.210 of 1993-94 and Board of Revenue vide order dated 26.10.1994 dismissed the petitioner's revision. Hence this writ petition.

3. This Court while entertaining the writ petition has granted the interim order on 02.10.1995, which runs as follows:

"Issue notice.

Until further orders of this Court, petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute."

4. In pursuance of the order dated 02.10.1995, private respondents as well as Gaon Sabha have filed their counter affidavit.

5. In reply, petitioners have also filed their rejoinder affidavit.

6. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners were granted patta on the basis of the Scheme of the Government as such the same cannot be cancelled on the private complaint on the ground that petitioners are not fulfilling the conditions mentioned in Section 195 of the U.P.Z.A.&.L.R. Act. He further submitted that even report submitted by the authority in the cancellation proceeding, in which it has mentioned that petitioners were granted patta under the Government scheme for vasectomy operation, as such unless it is proved that petitioners were not undergone for vasectomy operation, the patta cannot be cancelled at all. He further submitted that even case set up by the private respondents that petitioners are having more 3.125 acres of land is wrong and baseless. He further submitted that patta was granted to 41 Persons but the patta of the petitioners who are three in number have been cancelled without considering the report of the authority. He further submitted that State or Gaon Sabha has not initiated any proceeding for cancellation, as such the initiation of cancellation of proceeding at the instance of the private complainant is abuse of process of law. Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon paragraph Nos. 5 and 11 of the rejoinder affidavit dated 11.03.2018 which is as follows:

“5. That the contents of the Para no. 3 of the co