Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140998 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 69506 of 2013 Petitioner :- Ghan Shyam Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- A.P. Tewari,S.S. Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Smt Sushma Devi,Tariq Maqbool Khan,Uday Bhan Mishra Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. 1. Heard Sri A.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order rejecting his application for cancellation of allotment made in favour of private-respondent nos.5 to 8 moved under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short 'the Act'). The order has been confirmed by the Revisional Authority. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allotment was made on 04.01.1988 in favour of private-respondent nos.5 to 8 and the application for cancellation of allotment was moved on 06.01.2004. According to him, the Revisional Authority has rejected the application solely on the ground that the application was barred by time in view of provisions of Section 198(6) of the Act. 4. The Revisional Court has also taken the same view. 5. Sri Tiwari submits that the land was earmarked as a 'public utility land' in the consolidation proceedings and in view of Section 29-C of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 (in short 'the Act, 1953), the nature and purpose of land could not have been changed and the land could not have been allotted to the petitioner. He further submits that the delay cannot be the sole ground for rejecting his application as the allotment could not have been made in accordance with law. 6. Learned Standing Counsel while opposing the writ petition submits that there was a delay of 16 years in filing the said application and it appears to be a village dispute between the parties which had led to the filing of the application under Section 198(4) of the Act which has been rightly rejected by the Revisional Authority. 7. I have the counsel for the parties and perused material on record. 8. It is an admitted fact that the allotment was made in favour of private-respondent nos.5 to 8 on 04.01.1988. The cancellation proceedings were initiated on 06.01.2004. Section 198(6) of the Act clearly provides the limitation period of initiating the proceedings for cancellation of the allotment made in favour of an allottee. The period prescribed therein is 5 years. It is an admitted case that the present proceedings have been initiated after a lapse of 16 years. Both the revenue authorities have rightly recorded a finding that there is a delay in filing the application for cancellation of allotment and had rejected the same. 9. This Court further finds that Section 29-C of the Act, 1953 has to be read in harmony with Section 198(6) of the Act as the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is a complete Code in itself as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in Jagat Narayan Vs. State of U.P., Writ-C No. 54062 of 2013, decided on 09.02.2015. 10. This Court finds that the petitioner had initiated proceedings for cancellation under Section 198(4) of the Act, thus the limitation provided therein has to be adhered and the allotment cannot be cancelled solely on the basis relying upon the Act, 1953 and giving a complete go by to the mandatory provisions of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 11. In view of the said fact, no interference is required in the order impugned. 12. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 CS/- Digitally signed by :- CHANDAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad