Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3077 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 423 of 2025 Petitioner :- Krishn Dev Upadhyay Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Pratap Singh,Abdul Raheem Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 has been accepted by the ofÏce of learned Chief Standing Counsel. 3. Shri Mohan Singh, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.5. 4. In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondent Nos.3 and 4 is dispensed with. 5. Under challenge is the order dated 26.11.2024 passed by respondent no.2 whereby a petition preferred by the petitioner seeking cancellation of a lease granted in favour of the private respondent under the Bhoodan Adhinium has been rejected. 6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the private respondents are prosperous farmers. They were not eligible to get any land on lease from the Bhoodan Samiti. The petitioner in the aforesaid context, has filed a petition seeking cancellation of their pattas on the aforesaid ground and in support thereof, has filed a Khatauni which finds mention at page 14 of the paper book which is impugned order dated 26.11.2024. 7. It is further urged that despite having brought ample material on record to substantiate that the private respondents were not eligible for the said lease, the same has not been appropriately considered and the impugned order suffers from the vice of being arbitrary and having been passed in mechanical exercise of power, is liable to be set aside. 8. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of the material on record including the primary submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the private respondents are prosperous farmers having large number of ancestral properties, some of which may have also been sold in part and they are sufÏciently possessed with material possessions and for the said reason, they were not eligible to get the lease. 9. If the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are examined in light of the material placed on record, it would indicate that the petition filed by the petitioner does not clearly indicate as to the date on which the patta was executed by the Bhoodan Samiti in favour of the private respondents. 10. In absence of a clear date, merely to suggest that the private respondents were prosperous farmers, cannot be seen unless any reference date is given. In so far as the evidence which has been furnished and as recorded in the impugned order is concerned, it would also indicate that they are all Khataunis relating to a period subsequent allegedly from the date on which date the patta was executed by the Bhoodan Samiti. The validity of the patta is to be adjudged on the basis and on the date when the same is made. In absence of any clear date, it cannot be ascertained for sure that in light of the Khataunis filed by the petitioner that all that such properties existed at the time when the patta was given. The petitioner, who was the person who had initiated the proceedings, the burden was on him to have proved the same and despite having been afforded opportunities, no clear evidence was led by which his contentions could be proved. The Khataunis which had been referred, were placed on record but in absence of any clear date of the patta, it cannot be said that the said land was available with the private respondent on the date of the execution of the patta. 11 Where the petitioner has been unable to establish his basic care and it has been made the ground for rejecting the case of the petitioner, this Court does not find that there is any palpable error in the order dated 26.11.2024, for this court to intervene in exercise of its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. For the aforesaid reasons,the petition stands dismissed. Order Date :- 17.1.2025 Shukla Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench