A landless person can be granted land under the U.P. Bhudan Yagna Act irrespective of their residency in the village where the land is located, as long as there are no eligible landless persons in that village.

JUDGMENT :

(Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shatrughan Chaudhary, learned Additional CSC for respondent - State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.08.1992 - annexure 5 to the writ petition passed by Additional Collector, Finance and Revenue, Raebareli by means of which the lease granted to the petitioner in regard to khasra No.2032 area 1 bigha has been cancelled on three grounds:

a) The petitioner is not resident of village Sultanpur Kheda;

b) The petitioner is not landless agricultural labor;

c) The petitioner is not doing agriculture work on the land.

3. The petitioner has also challenged the impugned order dated 02.01.1993 - anneuxre 11 to the writ petition by means of which the application of the petitioner for recall has been rejected without considering the crucial aspect that the petitioner was deprived from putting his case before the Additional Collector, Finance & Revenue, Raebareli.

4. Factual matrix of the case is that vide order dated 16.01.1984, allotment of land situated at khasra No.2032 area 1 bigha, village Sultanpur Kheda, Tehsil Sadar, District Raebareli under U.P. Bhudan Yagna Act, 1952 was made in favour of the petitioner. At the time of allotment, there was a small construction on the said plot, in which agriculture related work was being done by the petitioner. The petitioner was issued an undated notice for cancellation of the lease by the District Government Counsel (Revenue), Raebareli, who cannot be said to be the 'person aggrieved' against the allotment of land to the petitioner as neither he was resident of village nor was eligible for allotment of lease.

5. Since, the notice was issued by District Government Counsel (Revenue), Raebareli, it can also not be said that the case was initiated by the Collector, Raebareli on his own motion under Section 15A of U.P. Bhudan Yagna Act, 1952 in which only two contingencies are provided-

i) the proceedings for cancellation can be initiated on the application given by person aggrieved; or

ii) the Collector on his own motion may proceed for cancellation of grant.

Further, the notice is also issued on a proforma which was actually being issued for cancellation of lease granted to incumbents under Section 198(4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951.

6. The petitioner engaged one counsel for responding the notice, but he did not act bona fidely and absented from hearing, as a result of which the lease granted to the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 13.08.1992. The petitioner came to know about the said order on 27.09.1992 through Lekhpal and then application for recall was filed on 28.09.1992, which was rejected by the Additional Collector, Finance & Revenue, Raebareli vide order dated 02.01.1993. Hence, the present writ petition has been preferred before this Court.

7. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the supplementary affidavit, it has been stated that in the village in question there is no land-less person, who can be granted lease of the land. The counter affidavit to this effect has been filed by learned Standing Counsel, wherein there is no denial of the fact narrated in the supplementary affidavit.

8. His further submission is that the land can be allotted to the petitioner, once there is no eligible in the village in question and therefore, the petitioner was allotted the land on which one house was constructed, therefore, the allegation in the impugned order that land can be only allotted