Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:103770 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20558 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mohammad Arif Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Harsh Vardhan Pandey,Satya Prakash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Kumar Gupta Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State and Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no. 6. Private respondents were allotted land by Land Management Committee on 14.02.1996 for agricultural purpose. An application for cancellation of lease was moved by petitioner in the year 2008 under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, on the ground that on Gata No. 246, the house of petitioner is situated while the land has been allotted of Gata No. 247/281. The application moved under Section 198(4) was rejected by order of Sub Divisional Officer against which revision was filed which has also been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the house of petitioner is standing over the property in dispute which is an Abadi which cannot be leased out for agricultural purpose. Sri P.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for Gaon Sabha vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that allotment was made in the year 1996 and application for cancellation was moved in the year 2008 which is hit by provisions of 198(6). I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. It is an admitted fact to both the parties that allotment was made in the year 1996 in favour of private respondents after due approval from Sub Divisional Officer. There is no dispute as to the date of allotment and approval by revenue officials. The application moved for cancellation under Section 198(4) of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act was moved in the year 2008 which is evident from the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer. The period prescribed under Section 198(6) is five years for moving application for cancelling allotment so made in favour of any person. The said application is admittedly moved after a period of 12 years. As the application moved is against the provisions of Section 198(6), both the authorities have rightly rejected the application moved by petitioner. No case for interference is made out. The writ petition is misconceived and stands dismissed. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 V.S.Singh Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad