Allahabad High Court
Hansraj vs State Of U.P. And Others on 6 August, 2022
Author: Prakash Padia
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 19 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 59597 of 2008 Petitioner :- Hansraj Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Surat Saroj,Alok Kumar Yadav,Archit Mandhyan,Harendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Kumar,R.P. Singh,V.K. Singh Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the following prayer:-
" i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.7.06 passed by the Upper Collector Finance/revenue Gautam Budh Nagar in case no. 26/06 under section 1984 State Vs. Hanshraj, and order dated 3.9.08 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial IInd) Meerut Mandal Meerut in IInd Revision no.72 of 2005-06 Hansraj Vs. State of U.P. and others under section 335 of U.P.4Z.A. & TAR. Act. (Annexure no.)"
Today when the matter is taken up, it is argued by learned cousnel for the petitioner that orders which are under challenged in this petition has already been challenged in Writ C No.51999 of 2008 which was decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 03.04.2019. The aforesaid order is reproduced below:-
"The petitioners, who are seven in numbers, were alongwith four others, allotted certain land. Petitioner nos.1 and 2 were given their respective plots in plot no.806M. Petitioner no.3 was granted two bighas of land in plot nos.888 and 904. Petitioner no.4 was granted two bighas from plot no.806M. Again petitioner no.5 was granted two bighas of land from plot no.806M. Petitioner no.6 was granted two bighas from plot nos.806M and 383M and the petitioner no.7 was granted two bighas from plot no.806M. The resolution with regard to the allotment was passed on 20.12.1990 and the approval to the resolution was given on 3.9.1991. Thereafter it has been alleged that the petitioners went in possession and when on 8.2.2001 a complaint was filed by respondent no.3-Greater Noida Authority, which is represented by Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, for cancellation of the pattas on 8.1.2001 the pattas were cancelled on 28.7.2006. The Revisions being Revision Nos.67 and 72 of 2005-06 filed by the petitioners were collectively dismissed on 3.9.2008 by which the order dated 28.7.2006 was affirmed. Aggrieved thereof the petitioners filed the instant writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if the complaint is perused, it becomes evident that the same was filed with regard to only five bighas of land and that too over plot no.1/2 Viz-a-viz. plot no.806, there was some complaint with regard to a pattedar by the name of Hansraj. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the proceeding for cancellation of pattas could be initiated at the instance of a "person aggrieved" and the respondent no.3-Greater Noida Authority definitely was not a person aggrieved at all as the land belonged to the Gaon Sabha. If the pattas were cancelled, it would revert back to the Gaon Sabha and the Greater Noida Authority would not stand to gain at all and it would not come in the picture at all. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that when the approval was granted in the year 1991, the proceedings for cancellation of pattas were barred by limitation and they could not have been initiated on the complaint dated 8.2.2001. Still further, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that had any fraud been alleged, then limitation would not have been a hurdle but in the instant case there was no fraud alleged in the application filed by the respondent no.3-Greater Noida Authority.
Learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of the Court to the impugned order which was passed on 28.7.2006 and in it he pointed out that the pattas were cancelled on the basis of the fact that the procedure as was prescribed under Rules 173 to 178 of the Rules were not adhered to and submits that there was no fraud on the part of the pattadars at all.
Learned Standing Counsel, learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha and the learned counsel appearing for the Greater Noida Authority have, however, submitted that if the Rules incorporated in Rules 173 to 178 of the Rules were not followed, which were mandatory in nature, then the pattas could not be sustained.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the orders impugned in the instant writ petition cannot be sustained and the writ petition deserves to allowed.
Firstly, the application as was filed by the Greater Noida Authority on 8.2.2001 was thoroughly barred by limitation. Further the complainant was not a "person aggrieved". Still further it may be stated that the application was with regard to plot no.1/2 and that too with regard to only five bighas whereas the petitioners, as has been stated above, had been allotted different plots and of an area much bigger than just five bighas.
Under such circumstances, the order dated 28.7.2006 passed by the Additional Collector, Gautam Budh Nagar and the order dated 3.9.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut are quashed. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed."
Since the identical controversy has already been settled by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, therefore, the present petition is also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
Order Date :- 6.8.2022 saqlain