##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 43659 of 2025

Chandrapal And 5 Others

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 80 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rahul Kumar Tyagi

Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 40

HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for

the State respondents and Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

respondent no.4.

2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners had been

granted patta of the land in question in pursuance to the resolution dated

21.11.2002 and the same was approved on 27.01.2003.

3. Subsequently, proceedings for cancellation of the patta granted to the

petitioners were initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dibai, District

Bulandshahr on 22.03.2006. Pursuant thereto the patta so granted to the

petitioners was cancelled by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dibai vide order

dated 14.12.2007.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2007 had

preferred an appeal and the same was allowed vide order dated 18.06.2008

wherein it was held that the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dibai had

no jurisdiction to hear the matter relating to cancellation of patta under

Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 and subsequently the

matter was remanded back for hearing by the Court of competent

jurisdiction.

5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the proceedings prior to

18.06.2008 had been conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate , who had

no jurisdiction to entertain the same in the eyes of law and as such the notice

issued under Section 198(5) in the proceedings were also a nullity. It is for

this reason that after the order dated 18.06.2008 fresh notices were issued to

the petitioners.

6. During the pendency of the proceedings, Sri Om Prakash-the complainant

WRIC No. 43659 of 2025

2

stopped pursuing the proceedings and as a consequence vide order dated

13.01.2016 suo moto proceedings under Section 198(4) were initiated

against the petitioners. Subsequently, notices were again issued to the

petitioners under Section 198(5) in pursuance to the order dated 13.01.2016.

7. Under these circumstances, it is submitted that the impugned order dated

13.07.2018 has been passed by the respondent no.3 under suo moto

proceedings initiated vide order dated 13.01.2016. Thus, it is beyond doubt

that the approval of the patta in favour of the petitioners was granted on

27.01.2003 and the suo moto proceedings were initiated on 13.01.2016 and

the notices issued under Section 198(5) after a lapse of 13 years from the

approval of the patta.

8. Thus, it is argued that the proceedings under Section 198(4) for

cancellation of patta were barred on account of delay. The petitioners in this

regard have drawn the attention of the Court to Section 198(6) (b) of the

U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 wherein a notice to show cause under Sub

Section (5) of Section 198 has to be issued before the expiry of period of

five years of such allotment or lease. Hence, it is contended that the entire

proceedings were initiated as the same was time barred.

9. It is further contended that Respondent no.3 had passed the impugned

order dated 13.07.2018 thereby cancelling the patta of 14 out of 60 allottees,

including the petitioners without any documentary evidence on record solely

on the basis of oral evidence of the concerned Lekhpal. The evidence, if any,

relied upon by the Lekhpal while arriving at a conclusion that the petitioners

were ineligible for the grant of patta was never provided to the petitioners.

All the petitioners belonged to the category of other backward class, are

residents of Village Shahdava and none of the petitioners have a holding in

excess of 1.26 hectares and as such were eligible for the grant of patta.

10. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order dated 13.07.2018 has

been passed without any application of mind and solely on the basis of the

statement of the concerned Lekhpal without e