High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Narain And Others v. The Addl. Commissioner, Azamgarh And Others - WRIT - C No. 29432 of 2002  RD-AH 12910 (3 August 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29432 of 2002
Ram Narain and others
The Additional Commissioner, Azamgarh
Division, Azamgarh and others
Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J
By means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.7.1996 passed by the respondent no.2, whereby the allotment of the agricultural land made under section 195 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.Act 1950 in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled. Challenging the said order the petitioner filed a revision before the respondent no.1, which was dismissed vide order dated 27.3.2002. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
I have heard Sri A.N.Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no.1 and 2, Sri Anuj Kumar for respondent no.3 and Sri G.K.Gupta for the contesting respondents no. 4 to 8. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.
The allotment in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled on the ground of various irregularities having been committed in the allotment proceedings and also on the basis that it was found that the petitioners were not eligible for being allotted such land under the provisions of U.P. Z.A. & L.R.Act. The Revisional Court has confirmed such finding given by the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any illegality or irregularity with such finding. However, the only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the objections filed by the private respondents were belated and that the same could not have been entertained because the objectors were not aggrieved persons. On being asked, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out from the record that any such objection or ground was raised by the petitioners before the respondent no.2 at the stage of cancellation of proceeding or before the revisional authority. Surprisingly from the writ petition also he could not point out paragraph wherein any such objection had been raised. The petitioner is expected to raise all such disputes in the body of the writ petition which he wishes to argue, so as to enable the respondents to reply to the same. In the present case, absolutely new grounds of challenge have been argued which are not borne out from the record as the petitioners could not show that he had ever raised any such ground at the stage of cancellation of proceedings or before the revisional authority or even in this writ petition. Even facts relating to such grounds are not on record. As such, since the cancellation of the lease deed in favour of the petitioners is absolutely justified on facts, there is no good ground for interference with the impugned order.
This writ petition being devoid of merits is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.