JUDGMENT

Kshitij Shailendra, J.

These two writ petitions contain common questions of fact and law and, therefore, the same are being decided by this common judgement.

2. One Smt. Revti was granted a lease in respect of Gata Nos.1150 and 645 by the Land Management Committee in the year 1992. Certain proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act-1950 (in short 'the Act- 1950') were initiated alleging the lease as invalid, however, the same were dismissed on 29.12.1995. Smt. Revti executed a sale deed in respect of Gata No.1150 in favour of her son Jagpal Singh in the year 2006 whereas another sale deed was executed in favour of Anita Sharma and others in respect of Gata No.645 in the year 2003.

3. A complaint was made by the complainant-respondent in the year 2015 alleging that lease granted in favour of Smt. Revti was invalid as, at the time of grant of lease, her son Jagpal Singh was Village Pradhan, i.e. head of the Land Management Committee. Further allegations were made in respect of transfer of land in favour of Jagpal Singh and Anita Sharma.

4. The proceedings were opposed by Jagpal Singh and Anita Sharma etc. and, by a common order dated 30.01.2016, the Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue)-Hapur, by placing reliance upon provisions of Section 28 -C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act-1947 (in short 'the Act-1947'), held that allotment made in favour of Smt. Revti in relation to Khasra No.645, being hit by Section 28 -C of the Act-1947, stood cancelled and, insofar as allotment made in respect of Gata No.1150 was concerned, objections were rejected.

5. There is no dispute about the fact that Smt. Revti died on 29.04.2006 after executing aforesaid sale deeds. There is also no dispute about the fact that Smt. Revti was not Village Pradhan nor did she hold any other post in the Land Management Committee in the year 1992, or otherwise, however, her son Jagpal Singh, admittedly, was Pradhan at that time.

6. Two revisions were filed against order dated 30.01.2016, one by the complainant-respondent and the other by Smt. Anita Sharma and others. The revision filed by the complainant was allowed by the order impugned dated 12.05.2016 whereby the allotment made in favour of Smt.Revti in respect of Gata No.1150 which was saved by the previous order dated 30.01.2016 was cancelled as hit by Section 28 -C of the Act- 1947. Insofar as other revision is concerned, the same was filed by Anita Sharma and others which was also dismissed by order dated 12.05.2016. In both the matters, review applications were also filed by the parties aggrieved which were also rejected.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made following submissions:-

(a). The proceedings initiated under Section 198 (4) of the Act 1950 were barred by limitation;

(b). The finding recorded in the order impugned that allotment being hit by Section 28-C of the Act-1947 is contrary to law as the said Section does not prohibit execution of lease/sale etc. in favour of a family member of the Village Pradhan.

(c) The land was declared as "abadi" under Section 143 of the Act 1950 in the year 2007 and, therefore, even on the date of filing of complaint in the year 2015, it ceased to be a "land" and, hence the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act 1950 were not maintainable.

8. Per contra, leaned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for the respondent-complainant have argued that the petitioner-Jagpal Singh has abused his position, inasmuch as, taking advantage of his position as Village Pradhan, he deliberately got executed lease deed in favour of his mothe