The court upheld the validity of agricultural allotment made in 1975-76, emphasizing that findings of fact by authorities require no interference unless proven perverse.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Sri. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents and Sri. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha.

2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to plot no.614, area 0.1260 hect. (0-10-0) and plot no.615/1, area 0.1520 hect. (0-12-0), situated at village Shivaya, Jamalupur, Pargana Daurala, Tehsil Sardhana, District Meerut. Gaon Sabha vide resolution dated 16.12.1975, alleged to allot the aforementioned plots in favour of one Tejpal (father of respondent nos. 6 to 9), accordingly, the allotment was made on 12.4.1976. Petitioner's father initiated proceeding on 11.1.1978, under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to "U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act) for cancellation of allotment made in favour of Tejpal. The aforementioned proceeding was registered as Case No.289/1978. Respondent no.4 heard the matter and vide order dated 11.4.1978 dismissed the application for cancellation of lease executed on 12.4.1978. Against the order dated 11.4.1978, passed by respondent no.4, a revision was filed by petitioner's father which was registered as Revision No.358/1978 and the same was also dismissed by respondent no.3/Addl. Commissioner. Against the order of respondent no.3, petitioner's father filed revision before the Board of Revenue which was allowed on 15.5.1985 and the matter was remanded back before the trial court to decide the cancellation proceeding afresh. In pursuance of the remand order dated 15.5.1985, passed by respondent no.2/Board of Revenue, the matter was heard by the respondent no.4 who vide order dated 19.2.2000 dismissed the application for cancellation of lease filed by the petitioner's father, accordingly, petitioner challenged the order dated 19.2.2000 before the Commissioner which was dismissed by respondent no.3 vide order dated 12.3.2001. Against the order dated 12.3.2001 and 19.2.2000, petitioner filed revision before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 23.11.2023, hence, this writ petition, challenging the impugned orders dated 23.11.2023, passed by respondent no.2, 12.3.2001, passed by respondent no.3 and 19.12.2000, passed by respondent no.4.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allotment was made in illegal and arbitrary manner in favour of the private respondents, accordingly, proceeding under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was initiated on behalf of the petitioner. It is further submitted that initially an application for cancellation of the lease filed by the petitioner, was rejected but ultimately the Board of Revenue has allowed the revision filed by the petitioner and the matter has been remitted back before the Collector to decide the cancellation proceeding afresh on merit. He also submitted that after remand order passed in revision, the Collector has again rejected the application for cancellation of lease filed by the petitioner on misconceived grounds and the order has been maintained in revision also. He submitted that proper procedure for grant of agricultural lease has not been followed in the matter. He further submitted that the land was not vacant on the the date of allotment in question, as such, the allotment made in favour of the private respondent, cannot be maintained. He also submitted that petitioner is still in possession of the plot in question, as such, the impugned order be set aside and the allotment made in favour of the private respondents be cancelled.

4. On the other hand, Sri. Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state respondents and Sri. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha submitted that in pursuance of the remand order, passed in revision, the matter was examined by the Collector and the finding of fact has been recorded that the entry which was made in favour of the p