1. All the above referred writ petitions involve identical questions of law and facts. The Writ Petition (C) No. 21208 of 2008 is being treated as the leading writ petition and the facts pertaining to the same is being considered for deciding the controversy involved.

2. Heard Shri Abhay Pratap Singh along with Shri Sangam Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Neelam Pandey, learned counsel for the complainants and Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 4, the Gaon Sabha/Land Management Committee concerned.

3. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the “U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act”) and challenge has been laid to the order dated 31.3.2008 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in Revision No. 5/06- 07 (Mahendra and others versus Inder Pal and others) under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act whereby and whereunder the revision has been rejected and consequently, the order dated 30.9.2006 passed by the Addl. Collector (Finance & Revenue), Gautam Budh Nagar cancelling the allotment dated 13.7.1996 and approval dated 6.4.1997 of the petitioners in proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act has been upheld.

4. The facts giving rise to the present proceedings lie in a narrow compass. The petitioners were granted agricultural leases under an allotment dated 13.7.1996 and the said allotment was also approved vide order dated 6.4.1997. The respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are stated to have filed application under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act against the petitioners and several others before the Collector, Gautam Budh Nagar for cancellation of the leases on the ground that the allotments were made to minors, persons living outside the villages and to people who were not landless. On the complaint of the respondent Nos. 5 to 7, a case under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act being Case No. 12/04 (Surendra and others versus Gram Sabha and others) was registered. The petitioners appeared in the proceedings and filed their objections on 19.9.1998. It is contended that the Addl. Collector (Finance & Revenue) without making any enquiries and considering the allegations made in the complaint and assuming them to be correct, cancelled the allotment of 32 persons including that of the petitioners vide order dated 30.9.2006. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.9.2006, the petitioners jointly filed a revision, being Revision No. 5 of 2006 before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. The complainants-respondent Nos. 5 to 7 also filed revision against the order dated 30.9.2006 so far as it had not cancelled the allotment of other persons which revision was registered as Revision No. 4 of 2006-07. Both the revisions were connected and heard together by the Addl. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. The Addl. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut vide order dated 31.3.2008 dismissed both the revisions and consequently upholding the order of the Addl. Collector (Finance & Revenue), Gautam Budh Nagar.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Collector as also the order passed by the Addl. Commissioner are patently erroneous and liable to be set aside. It has been argued that rules provided for allotment had been strictly followed, no irregularity or illegality was found in the original allotment which was duly approved and hence, the finding given by the Authorities that the procedure of allotment had not been followed, is baseless and perverse. The authorities failed to take note of the fact that the procedure adopted for allotment to 111 allottees could be held proper in the case of 79 allottees and improper for rest of 32 allottees. The petitioners and other allottees whose allotment was cancelled by the Addl. Collector were not only landless agricultural labourer but belonged to preferential category. Most of the allottees had opted for family planning under the offer of allotment of land in their favour and have been illegally and wrongly deprived of the allotment under the impugned orders. The petitioners also assailed the finding given against some of the allottees having land in their favour in the memo of the revision, but the revision has been dismissed without adverting to the contentions raised. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the writ petition is liable to be allowed.

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel as also the counsel representing the complainant respondent Nos. 5 to 7, in opposition to the writ petition, submit that the allotment was cancelled on the ground that petitioners were not eligible for the allotment and no infirmity or illegality can be attributed to the impugned orders and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is also submitted on the basis of the stand taken in the counter affidavit sworn by the Tehsildar, Jewar, district Gautam Budh Nagar on behalf of the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that the allotment was cancelled on the ground that provisions of Rule 173 to 178 of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Rules had not been followed and allotment had been made to persons who were not eligible for grant of the lease being big agriculturists and some belonging to the outside of concerned villages and residing in the city and belonging to the higher community. The impugned order was passed after due notice and opportunity and no illegality or infirmity can be attributed to the impugned orders. The writ petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed.

7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record.

8. On the perusal of the records, I find that the order dated 30.9.2006 cancelling the leases approved in favour of the petitioners has been passed by the Addl. Collector (Finance & Revenue), Gautam Budh Nagar. The exercise of power has been made under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act. The provisions of Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, 1950 is quoted hereunder:-

“Section 198(4). 'The [Collector] may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment and if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he may cancel the allotment and the lease, if any.”

9. In the opinion of the Court, “Collector” appearing in the aforesaid provisions does not include an “Addl. Collector”. Section 3 (4) of the Act defines “Collector” as under:-

"Collector" means an officer appointed as Collector under the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and includes an Assistant Collector of the first class empowered by the State Government by a notification in the Gazette to discharge all or any of the functions of a Collector under this Act;" 

10. From a conjoint reading of the definition of “Collector” and the provisions of Section 198 (4) of the act, it necessarily follows that power of cancellation of allotment under the Act can be exercised only by the Collector appointed under the provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act and by an Assistant Collector of First Class specifically empowered by the State Government by a Notification in the Gazettee to discharge the functions of a Collector relating to cancellation of allotment of a land and by no other.

11. Addl. Collector are appointed by the State Government under Section 14-A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and they hold office during the pleasure of the State Government. Sub-section 3 of Section 14-A of the said Act provides that an Addl. Collector can exercise such, power and discharge such duties of a Collector in such cases or class of cases as the Collector concerned may direct. Thus, the Addl. Collector is a delegatee of the Collector and he has no independent power except those entrusted to him by the Collector. No such material has been brought on record to indicate that the Addl. Collector (Finance & Revenue), Gautam Budh Nagar has been delegated power by the Collector to exercise the power conferred by Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act. Thus, the Addl. Collector (Finance & Revenue), Gautam Budh Nagar has no authority to entertain the proceedings for cancellation of the leases made in favour of the petitioners or to pass any order exercising powers conferred by Section 198 (4) of the Act.

12. Both the Assistant Collector as also the Addl. Commissioner while passing the impugned orders dated 30.9.2006 and 31.8.2008 have been oblivious of the above legal position. In such view of the matter, the impugned orders dated 30.9.2006 and 31.8.2008 cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside. All the aforesaid writ petitions stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.