JUDGMENT :

1. The present petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 8.5.2008 (Annexure-1), whereby the leases granted to the petitioners under the Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952, has been cancelled in exercise of powers under Section 15-A of the said Act.

2. The facts of all the writ petitions are the same, however, the facts in Writ-C No. 26944 of 2008 are being considered and decided as a leading case.

3. The brief facts, giving rise to the present petition, are as under:-

4. The petitioners before this Court are Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and only the petitioner no. 18 belongs to General Category, they all being landless agricultural labourers were allotted Plot No. 2495/25 of different areas from the period 24.5.1982 to 7.6.1982 by the Bhoodan Yagna Sub Committee, Orai, copies of the said allotment lease have been collectively marked as Annexure-2. In terms of the said allotment, the petitioners continue to be in occupation of the properties, allotted to them. It is further alleged that consolidation operation was carried out in the village Dakore and in respect of the petitioners, one Dr. Ram Sewak Niranjan, Sanyojak, filed his objections challenging the allotments made by the earlier Sanyojak Dhani Ram, however the said proceedings culminated in a settlement and the names of the petitioners were mutated over the properties in question. Several ancillary proceedings took place, however the same are not subject matter of the present petitions.

5. This Court had called for the records pertaining to the allotments, which are subject matter of the present petitions, a perusal of the record shows that the Commissioner, Jhansi issued directions on 17.1.2003 for investigation relating to the allotments made in favour of the petitioners, in pursuance whereof, an investigation was carried out. A perusal of the said report reveals that detailed investigations were carried out and the conclusion drawn was as under:-

“In respect of 44 leases, mutation was carried out in respect of 28 leases by the Consolidation Officer and for the rest 16, the mutation was carried out and it was recorded that at the time of the allotment, the directions under Section 14 were not carried out. It was further recorded that in terms of the provisions of Section 14 (4A) at least 50% of the allotments should have been done in favour of Scheduled Castes persons and thus it was recommended that the same were liable to be quashed. Curiously, in the said report, itself it was mentioned that the original file was not available on record, as such it could not be said conclusively as to which Sanyojak executed the leases in respect of 21 allottees.”

6. The record further reveals that specific detailed reply was submitted to the show cause notices served upon the petitioners, wherein it was specifically requested that a copy of the reports, which are proposed to be relied upon, should be supplied to the petitioners. It was further pleaded that any report although can be a ground for initiating action, a full-fledged enquiry should be conducted while passing the orders under Section 15-A of the Act. The copies of the reports were never supplied to the petitioners, as the same were held to be confidential.

7. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the State, yet another report dated 6th February, 2003 has been relied upon, which indicates that in respect of 21 persons, the original file is not available, however as the mutation is based only upon Form No. 23, whereas there is no inscription in Form No. 45, which makes it clear that the mutation must have been carried out in back date.

8 Based upon the said two reports dated 6th February, 2003 as well as the report in pursuance to the directions dated 17.1.2003, show cause notices were served upon the petitioners, which are available on the record, as produced by the Standing Counsel. The show cause notice alleged that the Collector was satisfied with the report dated 6.2.2003 and was of t