RAKESH TIWARI, J. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The dispute in this petition relates to the cancellation of leases of land belonging to the Bhudan Yagna Committee situate in village Ghamahapur, Magaini Dixitpur, Jodabari and Udai Karanpur. 3. From the record it appears that under Section 14 of the U. P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952 (U. P. Act No. X of 1953), the Bhoodan Yagna Committee granted lease of lands to the petitioners, who were landless on 1-1-1968 and that after the grant of lease to the petitioners, all the petitioners became the Sirdars in accordance with Section 14 (1) of the U. P. Act No. X of 1953. The U. P. Bhoodan Yagya Act, 1952 was amended by U. P. Act No. X of 1975. 4. The land allotted to the petitioners belonged to Swami Krishna Nand (a Gosain) who had gifted it in favour of the U. P. Bhudan Yagna Committee on 15-3-1958. Thereafter, the said land vested in the aforesaid Committee and the name of the Samit was also recorded over the land in question. 5. It is submitted that one Ram Nath Singh and Doodh Nath Chaturvedi were the organisers and distributors of the land of Bhudan Samiti. Sri Ram Nath Singh manipulated a Patta dated 12-5- 1968 in favour of his relation Ramesh Singh whereas Ramesh Singh did not belong to the village Ghamahapur and even he did not belong to Gyanpur Tehsil and the land could not be allotted to him. Consequently, a dispute started over the possession of some of the plots and proceedings were initiated under Section 145 Cr. P. C. However, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Gyanpur was unable to decide as to which party was in possession as such he made a reference under Section 146 Cr. P. C. 6. In the reference made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gyanpur on 2-8-1969, the Munsif came to the conclusion that Ram Nath Singh, who was the first party was never in possession over the plots in dispute and the second party was in possession over all the plots in dispute. 7. Aggrieved by the order dated 10-9-1969 passed by the Munsif, a revision was filed before the Sessions Judge, Gyanpur, which was dismissed the matter, was again taken in reference by Ram Nath Singh before this Court. 7. Aggrieved by the order dated 10-9-1969 passed by the Munsif, a revision was filed before the Sessions Judge, Gyanpur, which was dismissed the matter, was again taken in reference by Ram Nath Singh before this Court. The reference was allowed by this Court on 6-4-1971 and it was held if there was any apprehension of breach of peace, it should have been decided by the Magistrate before deciding the question of possession. The revision was allowed and the case was remanded. 8. Again a revision was filed the High Court. By order dated 1-1- 79, this Court decided that the petitioners were in possession. 9. In the meantime, the consolidation proceedings started and Sri Ram Nath Singh filed an application before the Settlement Officer Consolidation in respect of Chak No. 8 of village Ghamahapur and prayed that the name of Ramesh Singh, who had been granted Patta in respect of this plot should be recorded in his name. This application was referred by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) for disposal to the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The Assistant Consolidation Officer ordered that the plots be entered in the name of Ramesh Singh son of Lalta Prasad Singh after expunging the name of Bhudan Yagya Samiti. 10. Aggrieved by this order, two appeals were filed. One by Sita Ram and others of the same village and the other was filed by Lalta Prasad, Bhagwati Prasad, Upendra Nath Tiwari and others. 11. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) allowed the appeal taking the view that the proclamation was not issued by the Assistant Consolidation Officer before passing order and as such the objections could not be filed and he ordered that the case be sent back to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the objections under Section 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on 23-9-1969. 12. Against the order dated 23-9-1969 passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Sri Ramesh Singh filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was dismissed by him vide order dated 2-3-1970 with the observation that the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer cannot be maintained and it would be in the fitness of things if the case is remanded for disposal afresh to the Consolidation Officer. 13. 13. While the aforesaid proceedings were going on Moti Lal and others of village Ghamahapur filed an application for setting aside the Pattas on the ground that the Patta in favour of Ramesh Singh had been wrongly executed by Ram Nath Singh who happened to be his relation. Another application was filed on 1-10-1977 by one Lalta and Dhunmun for the same purpose. A report appears to have been called from the Tehsildar, who conducted an enquiry the petitioners were not associated with the enquiry. He reported that all the pattas had been executed in favour of the persons, who did not belong to scheduled caste and, therefore, it should be cancelled. However, on the report of the Tehsildar, the Collector initiated proceedings for cancellation of the Pattas under Section 15-A of the Act. Section 15-A is quoted hereunder: "15-A. Cancellation of certain grants.- (1) The Collector may of own motion and shall on the report of the Committee or on the application of any person aggrieved by the grant of any land made under Section 14, whether before or after the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna (Amendment) Act, 1975, enquire into such grant, and if he is satisfied that the grant was irregular or was obtained by the grantee by mis- representation of fraud, he may, (i) cancel the grant, and on such cancellation, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 14 or in any other law for the time being in force, the rights, title, and interest of the grantee or any person claiming through him in such land shall cease, and the land shall revert to the Committee; and (ii) direct delivery of possession of such land to the committee after ejectment of every person holding or retaining possession thereof, and may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary. (2) Notice of every proceeding under Section (1) shall be given to the Committee, and any representation made by the Committee in relation thereto shall be taken into consideration by the Collector. (3) No order shall be passed under sub-section (1) except after giving an opportunity of being heard to the grantee or any person known to Collector to be claiming under him. (4) The order of Collector passed under sub-section (1) shall be final and conclusive. " 14. (3) No order shall be passed under sub-section (1) except after giving an opportunity of being heard to the grantee or any person known to Collector to be claiming under him. (4) The order of Collector passed under sub-section (1) shall be final and conclusive. " 14. Objections were filed inter alia on the ground that Pattas which were executed in favour of the petitioners, were valid as they were executed by the then Distributors, Doodh Nath Chaturvedi, after completing all the formalities required in execution of the Pattas. 15. It is submitted that opposite parties in the application of Moti Lal and others, some of whom are petitioners, do not belong to one family. No illegality has been committed in execution of the Pattas and the petitioners were recorded in possession immediately after the execution of the Patta and are in continuous possession since then. 16. The Sanyojak (Distributor) Bhudan Samiti filed an affidavit in the proceedings stating that the Pattas were valid and in accordance with law. It was also stated that in the execution of the Pattas by the Bhudan Samiti neither any stamps are required nor it is required to be registered or attested. It has also been stated in the affidavit that the petitioners were landless persons and the grants of land was given to them in accordance with law. After the grants, the petitioners were also given possession. 17. The Additional Collector allowed the application of Moti Lal and others and vide his order dated 28- 7-1984 cancelled the Pattas in favour of the petitioners. 18. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the Prabhu alias Ghurahe, who was not a party in the writ petition. moved an application for impleadment, which was also filed by him and others. This Court did not allow the impleadment application. The order dated 17-3-1988 passed on the impleadment application is as under: - "it is not necessary to implead the applicants in the present writ petition. However, the applicants are permitted to file counter-affidavit about their claim and the petitioner shall file rejoinder affidavit to the counter-affidavit filed by the applicants. At the time of hearing of the writ petition, the applicants may be heard under the Rules of the Court, but it is not to implead them in the writ petition. " Sd/- K. P. S. 17-3-1988 19. At the time of hearing of the writ petition, the applicants may be heard under the Rules of the Court, but it is not to implead them in the writ petition. " Sd/- K. P. S. 17-3-1988 19. On a perusal of the above order, it is clear that applicants were allowed to file counter-affidavit about their claim. There was no permission granted by the Court to Prabhu and others to controvert the allegations of the writ petition. In the instant case the counter-affidavit does not contain any basis by means of which the deponent of the counter-affidavit could be said to have asserted his claim to the grants. To controvert the allegations of the writ petition as ones claim is one thing, and to negative the allegations made by the petitioners in support of the legitimacy of the grants made on 1-2-68, is another thing. Order VIII, Rule 3, C. P. C. is relevant in this regard and is quoted below for ready reference : Order VIII, Rule 3: "it shall not be sufficient for a defendant in this written statement to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff, but the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth, except damages. " 20. Further in the counter-affidavit of Prabhu, there is no specific denial to the allegations contained in para 3 of the writ petition. In regard to the fact that the petitioners were not landless persons, would not amount to an assertion. Full facts had to be given in order to assert that the petitioners were not landless persons. No such fact has been alleged by the deponent of the counter-affidavit in regard to the fact that the petitioners were not landless persons. In this view of the matter, there was no evidence on record for the Additional Collector to say that the petitioners were not landless persons at the time when the grants were made. In fact the Additional Collector has also not given any finding that at the time when the grants were made, the petitioners were not landless persons. 21. The petitioners have relied on 1980 ALJ 627, Abdul Salam v. Board of Revenue, in which it has been held: ". . . In fact the Additional Collector has also not given any finding that at the time when the grants were made, the petitioners were not landless persons. 21. The petitioners have relied on 1980 ALJ 627, Abdul Salam v. Board of Revenue, in which it has been held: ". . . that there is no requirement either in the Act or in the rules to consider the case of persons, who did not apply at all nor could the allotment be cancelled because there were certain other persons, who could have applied, but did not apply. " 22. Further reliance has been placed on AIR 1964 SC 538 , in support of the arguments that the denial in the counter-affidavit would not amount to an ascertain, full facts have to be given in order to assert that the petitioners were not landless persons. 23. From Section 14 of the U. P. Act No. X of 1953, it appears that the only condition for giving the land on grant was that the person had to be landless. There was no other condition attached for giving the land on grant. The Rules framed thereunder also do not prescribe any other condition, which had to be possessed by the person in whose favour the grant was made. 24. The Bhudan Yagya Committee was a statutory body and a grant made by it would be deemed to have been made in accordance with law, and the grant made by it was valid under Section 114 (2) of the Evidence Act. Every official act would be deemed to have been done legally and grant is regular. The question whether the grant was made in accordance with law had to be looked into only by referring to the provisions of the Act, which was prevalent before the amendment of Act, 1975, and not after the amending Act which came into force later on. 25. The Additional Collector has, however, erred grossly in law by applying the Amendment Act, 1975. 26. The Additional Collector could cancel the grant only on the basis of the law, which was prevalent on 1-1-68, the date when the grants were made for the petitioners. If the cancellation of the grants had been done in accordance with the Amended Act, then it means that a different law was applied, which apparently could not be done. 27. The Additional Collector could cancel the grant only on the basis of the law, which was prevalent on 1-1-68, the date when the grants were made for the petitioners. If the cancellation of the grants had been done in accordance with the Amended Act, then it means that a different law was applied, which apparently could not be done. 27. I am supported in my view by a Division Bench of this Court in 1986 All LJ 645, Matoley v. State of U. P. and another, wherein it has been held in para 5: Para 5: "in order to find whether a particular grant made in favour of a person under the provisions of `bhudan Yagna Act is regular or not, the provisions of the Act as they stood at the time of making of the grant have to be looked into. In the instant case the grant was made in the year 1956, prior to the amendment Section 14 of the Act in the year, 1975, Section 14 of the Act as it stood in the year 1956 enabled the Committee to settle the land obtained under the Act with "landless persons". It neither specified that such landless person had also to be agricultural labourers nor that they had to be residents of the District in which the concerned land was located. Case of the petitioner in this regard is that in the year 1956 he had no land in his name and was, as such, a landless person and the settlement made on him was quite legal. The stand taken by the respondent in para 8 of the counter-affidavit is that the petitioner had obtained the grant by making misrepresentation and practising fraud, that is, by claiming to be landless person when he in fact was not such a person residing in the same locality. Further in his objections the petitioner neither stated that he was a landless person nor did produce any evidence in support of the claim made by him. This stand taken by the respondent in their counter- affidavit cannot be accepted. A perusal of the notice, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, shows that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner not for the reason that he was a landless person but because he was said not to be a landless "agricultural labourer". A perusal of the notice, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, shows that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner not for the reason that he was a landless person but because he was said not to be a landless "agricultural labourer". There can be landless person without his being a landless agricultural labourer. Moreover, the order passed by the Additional Collector (Ceiling) dated 13-9-76 whereby he rejected petitioners objection indicates that the petitioner did not contend before me that he was a landless person, but then, the Additional Collector proceeded to reject petitioners objection merely on the ground that he did not submit any proof in support of his claim. The order does not indicate that there was any material before the Additional Collector (Ceiling) to indicate that the petitioner was, at the time, when the plot was settled with him, in fact not a landless person. For the purposes of Section 14 of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time, that is in the year 1956, it was not at all material where a landless person claiming settlement of plot was also a agricultural labourer. At that time the section also did not imply any such qualification that the landless person to whom the land could be granted must be resident of the district in which the land was located. In this view of the matter it is evident that there was absolutely no material on the record which could lead any one to infer that the petitioner had either been guilty of fraud or of suppressing true facts. The two grounds mentioned in the show cause notice are also not relevant to the question where the settlement made in favour of the petitioner in the year 1956 was or was not regular. The notice requiring the petitioner to show cause why the Patta executed in his favour in the year 1956 be not cancelled. For the reasons stated therein as also the entire proceedings following thereon stand vitiated. The order dated 13- 9-76 cancelling the Patta, executed in favour of the petitioner in the year 1956 on the two grounds stated in the show cause notice is thus liable to be quashed. " 28. For the reasons stated therein as also the entire proceedings following thereon stand vitiated. The order dated 13- 9-76 cancelling the Patta, executed in favour of the petitioner in the year 1956 on the two grounds stated in the show cause notice is thus liable to be quashed. " 28. Similarly in 1986 RD page 311, Brij Kishore v. Atirikt Zila Adhikari, it was held that the Collector has been empowered to cancel settlement under the Bhudan Yagna Act made with any person both before and after the amending Act came into force in the year 1975 only on the following two conditions: 1. The grant was irregular. 2. The grant had been obtained by practising fraud or misrepresentation. 29. It has also been held that the power to cancel that grant of land can be exercised by Additional Collector. 30. In view of the the facts stated above, it is clear that there was no provision for the cancellation of a grant in the unamended U. P. Act No. X of 1953. The Section 15-A was inserted by the U. P. Act No. X of 1975, Amendment Act in the U. P. Act No. X of 1953. The moment a grant was given to a person, he become a Sirdar and if he became a Sirdar his grant could not be cancelled and he could not be deprived of his rights except in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act. 31. There is absolutely no finding in regard to the fact that the grant was given to the petitioners fraudulently. In the absence of any evidence of fraud, the Additional Collector rightly did not given any finding that the grants were given to the petitioners fraudulently. 32. In view of the aforesaid facts and peculiar circumstances of the case and the law, the impugned order dated 28-2-84, is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. 33. No order is made as to costs. Petition allowed. .