Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
Notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has been accepted by the Office of Assistant Solicitor General of India whereas notice for opposite parties no. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel.
Mr. Devrishi Kumar, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 1.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.3.2019 whereby the representation of the petitioner pursuant to the Court's order dated 5.12.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 34895 (MB) of 2018 has been considered and rejected.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the father of petitioner, namely, Gajideen Gupta was a freedom fighter. He was entitled to get the benefit of the scheme of the Government for grant of 3.25 acre agricultural land which was made applicable from the year 1975. The said benefit is required to be extended to the dependents of freedom fighter. The petitioner being the son of freedom fighter and dependent is entitle to get the benefit of the said scheme. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 34895 (MB) of 2018. The Court had disposed of the writ petition with direction to the District Magistrate, Sultanpur to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, expeditiously. The petitioner thereafter preferred a representation before the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, however, the District Magistrate did not decide the representation and it was opposite party no. 7, Sub Divisional Officer, Kadipur, District Sultanpur who has passed the impugned order rejecting the representation of the petitioner. The order impugned is wrong and illegal.
Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, submits that while considering the representation of the petitioner the opposite party no. 7 had called for a report from the Tehsildar, Kadipur. As per the report submitted by the Tehsildar, Kadipur, one of the sons of the petitioner is in Government service. The financial condition of the family is good. There is no reason to allot agricultural land in favour of the petitioner. The opposite party no. 7 after considering the said report has rejected the representation of the petitioner. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.
We have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and gone through the record.
First of all it is to be noted that the father of petitioner who was said to be a freedom fighter during his life time had not approached the Government or its authorities for extending any such benefit, like allotment of agricultural land to him. After his death, the petitioner has approached the Court claiming such benefit. The writ petition preferred by the petitioner was disposed of with liberty to petitioner to move a representation before the concerning District Magistrate who was required to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It was thereafter that the representation of the petitioner has been considered by the competent authority and the said competent authority has come to conclusion that the petitioner is not required to be given the benefit of the scheme under which agricultural land could be allotted to a freedom fighter.
We do not find any reason to disagree with the conclusions drawn by the authorities while deciding the representation of the petitioner.
There is nothing on record to indicate that in all circumstances the petitioner is entitle to get the benefit of the said scheme which was basically floated for the benefit of the freedom fighters.
The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
[Alok Mathur, J.] [Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.] Order Date :- 18.12.2019 Santosh/-