Court No. - 50
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2954 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ravindira Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Prakash Sharma,Shyam Sunder Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard the counsel for the petitioner.
The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 11.9.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue upholding the allotments made by the Gaon Sabha in favour of certain persons.
Through its order dated 11.9.2018, the Board of Revenue has set-aside the orders passed by the sub-ordinate revenue authorities who had cancelled the allotments made on the proposal of the Gaon Sabha. The allotments were proposed by the Gaon Sabha on 9th April, 1999 and were approved by the concerned revenue authorities on 15.5.1999 after considering the inquiry reports sought by the approving authority and submitted by the Deputy District Magistrate.
It appears from the order dated 11.9.2018 that the Tehsil Officer had twice inquired regarding the eligibility of the persons who were proposed to be allotted different plots and the Deputy District Magistrate had also inquired regarding the validity of the proposal of the Gaon Sabha. Further, the persons who had filed their affidavits in support of the complaint made against the allottees did not appear before the sub-ordinate revenue authorities to reiterate the averments made in the affidavits and the findings of the sub-ordinate revenue authorities that the allotments were made without following the procedure prescribed in the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950') as well as Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereafter referred to as, 'Rules, 1952') are without any evidence.
I have also perused the orders dated 23.4.2001 and 3.12.2011 passed by the sub-ordinate revenue authorities and it is apparent that no facts or findings have been referred in the aforesaid orders to support the conclusion that the allotments were made without following the procedure and were against any provision prescribed in the Act, 1950 or the Rules, 1952.
It appears that the case of the complainant was that the land was initially proposed to be allotted to the Rapid Action Force but a reading of the order dated 11.9.2018 shows that the Rapid Action Force declined the aforesaid offer as the land proposed to be allotted was not sufficient for the Force. Apart from the aforesaid, the petitioner has not impleaded the allottees as respondents in the writ petition.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition lacks merit and is, hereby, dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 Satyam