Nasir Hasan vs District Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector and Others

S.U. Khan, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioner states that assami patta was granted to the petitioner on 12.6.1998 and Consolidation Officer, district Bijnor through order dated 22.12.2008, passed in the case State v. Nasir Hasan, directed that name of the petitioner shall be expunged from the revenue records. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition only on the ground that opportunity of hearing was not provided to the petitioner. By virtue of proviso to Rule 176A of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules no assami patta can be granted for more than five years. On repeated inquiry of the Court as to what right the petitioner had to remain in possession after 5 years from 12.6.1998 learned Counsel for the petitioner could not give any reply. The only argument raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that opportunity of hearing ought to have been granted. Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and Aligarh Muslim University and Others Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan, has held that if someone complains denial of opportunity of hearing then he must show that in case opportunity had been provided, what plausible cause he would have shown. In this case learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to justify petitioner''s continuance in possession after expiry of the period of assami patta. In such circumstances impugned order cannot be set aside and matter cannot be remanded for completion of formality of useless opportunity of hearing.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in several such cases where question of cancellation of assami patta even after 5 years was involved, interim orders have been passed. One of such interim order is dated 17.3.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 13715 of 2009, Liyakat v. D.D.C. Firstly it is an interim order and secondly it appears the attention of the Hon. Judge was not drawn to the above authorities of the Supreme Court.

Accordingly, there is absolutely no merit in the writ petition as admittedly about six years before period of patta has expired. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.