The recall of benefits granted under Section 122B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is impermissible without following proper legal procedures.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Sri Vishal Khandelwal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Avinash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the Gram Sabha.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners were granted benefit of Section 122 B (4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Land Reforms Act, 1950 (herein after referred to as the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act) in respect to plot no. 430 situated in village -Sikandarpur Kotwar, Tehsil-Firozabad, District-Firozabad vide order dated 31.01.1994 and 20.01.1994. Against the order dated 31.01.1994/20.01.1994 granting the benefit of Section 122B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in favour of the petitioners, the recall application has been filed on 14.09.1994 by District Government Counsel. Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 17.09.1994 allowed the aforementioned application setting aside the order dated 31.01.1994 and restored the proceeding to its original number. Against the order dated 17.09.1994 passed by Sub- Divisional Officer, petitioner filed three revisions before the Commissioner, which were registered as revision no. 1 of 1994, 2 of 1994 & 3 of 1994 under Section 333A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Agra Division, Agra vide order dated 19.09.1995 sent the reference before the Board of Revenue for allowing the revisions, setting aside the orders dated 17.09.1994 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in three cases and for fresh disposal of restoration applications. The references were registered as Reference Nos. 15, 16, 17 of 1995-96. Board of Revenue vide order dated 25.01.1996 rejected the references. Hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners for the following reliefs:-

(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 25.01.1996, passed by Board of Revenue in all the references 15 to 17 of 1995-96 as well as order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Firozabad dated 17.09.1994.

(ii) to pass any further orders, which this Hon'ble Court may deem proper & appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. This Court entertained the matter and granted the interim protection on 08.05.1996 staying the operation of the impugned orders.

4. In pursuance of the order dated 08.5.1996, affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste Community and petitioners were found in possession over the plot in question before the relevant date accordingly, benefit of Section 122B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was granted to the petitioners in proper manner. He further submitted that on the basis of the order dated 31.01.1994/20.01.1994 granting the benefit of Section 122B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the name of the petitioners were accordingly recorded in the revenue record. He placed the copy of the 'Khatauni' annexed as annexure no. 1 to the instant petition in order to demonstrate that in the remark column particular of the order granting the benefit of Section 122B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been mentioned to record the name of the petitioners as 'Bhoomidhar' with non transferable rights. He next submitted that the recall application has been filed against the order dated 31.01.1994 in place of initiating proper proceeding as held by this Court in the Case reported in 2018 (141) R.D. 750 Navmi Lal Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary and Others as well as Case reported in 2014 (122) RD 677 Smt. Reshma Devi and others Versus Commissioner and others . He submitted that in view of the ratio of law laid down by this Court in Smt. Reshma Devi (Supra) & Navmi Lal (Supra), the Recall/Restoration Application cannot be entertained against the order granting the benefit of Section 122B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. He further submitted that Additional Commissioner has rightly sent the referen