The cancellation of land allotment to an ex-army man was invalid as it was initiated by a private party without locus standi, reaffirming the preferential rights under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.K.S. Paliwal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 and Mr. Hari Kant Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Plot No. 2347 area 0.800 Hectare and Plot No. 2280 area 0.919 Hectare situated in Mauja-Pardaha, Tappa, Paragana and Tehsil-Mohammadabad Gohana ( at present Tehsil-Sadar) District-Mau was allotted to petitioner on 21.02.1982 being ex-army man (Sepoy). The aforementioned allotment was approved also by Sub-Divisional Officer on 18.09.1982. Private respondent no. 5 filed an application for cancellation of petitioner's lease on the ground that petitioner did not have any land in the village as such he is not entitled to allotment. According to petitioner, the petitioner had retired from Indian Army and fought for the country in the war of 1965 and 1971 as such petitioner is entitled for allotment of the plot in question in view of the provision contained under Section 198 (1)(f) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act). Petitioner filed his objection in the aforementioned cancellation proceeding initiated by private respondent no. 5 stating that respondent no. 5 has no locus to initiate cancellation proceedings in respect to the plot which was allotted to petitioner according to provisions of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The aforementioned cancellation proceeding was registered as Case No. 101 under Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The Additional Collector vide order dated 04.06.1986, cancelled the petitioner's allotment and vested the plot in question in favour of Gaon Sabha. Petitioner challenged the order dated 04.06.1986 by way of revision before Commissioner. The matter was referred before Board of Revenue by court of Commissioner. The aforementioned reference was heard by Board of Revenue and vide order dated 20th March, 1997, the reference was accepted and order of Additional Collector dated 04.06.1986 was set aside and the matter was sent back before Additional Collector to decide the cancellation proceeding afresh. In pursuance of remand order dated 20th March, 1997 passed by Board of Revenue, Additional Collector heard the matter afresh and vide order dated 12.01.2001 cancelled the petitioner's allotment. Petitioner challenged the order dated 12.01.2001 passed by Additional Collector by way of revision before Commissioner, which was heard and dismissed vide order dated 22.01.2002. Petitioner further challenged the order dated 22.01.2002 by way of revision before Board of Revenue, which was registered as Revision No. 115 of 2001-02. The Board of Revenue has also dismissed the revision vide judgment dated 22.07.2002 on the ground that second revision is not maintainable in view of Amending Act No. 20 of 1997, hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner challenging the judgment dated 22.07.2002 passed by respondent no. 1/Board of Revenue, judgment dated 22.01.2002 passed by respondent no. 2-Commissioner and judgment dated 12.01.2001 passed by respondent no. 3/Additional Collector.

3. This Court has entertained the matter on 08.10.2002 and granted interim protection directing the parties to maintain status quo.

4. In pursuance of the order dated 08.10.2002 a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of private respondent no. 5 and petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavit also.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was allotted the plot in question being Ex-Army Man has provided under Section 198(1)(f) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as such the same cannot be cancelled on the private complaint/cancellation proceeding initiated by private respondent no. 5. He further submitted that respondent no. 5 is not a person aggrieved as such the cancellation proceeding initiated by respondent no. 5 is abuse of process of law. He further submitted that Additional Collector/Commissio