MEWA LAL Vs. GAON SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by learned Additional Commissioner, Allahabad in a case under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act whereby he has recommended that the order of the trial Court be set aside and the case be remanded back to it for fresh decision after giving an opportunity to both the parties for adducing evidence.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that proceedings for cancellation of lease was started on an application moved by Mewa Lal, stating therein that he is in possession over the land in dispute since long from the time of his ancestors and he is enjoying the fruits of the trees. The land in dispute is entered as Banjar and Parti and the Gaon Sabha has no right to grant a lease in favour of the opposite-party who is not a resident of village circle. He also stated that he belongs to Scheduled Caste and he is in possession since before 30 June, 1975. Opposite-party has filed an objection stat­ing that the allotment was made in accord­ance with rules and the application for cancellation is liable to be rejected. He also filed copies of khataunis for 1387 to 1392 Fasli ; Khasra for 1277 Fasli and photocopy of khatauni for 1388 to 1393 Fasli has also been filed. After taking evidence of the parties, the trial Court arrived at a conclusion that entries in the name of the opposite-party is continuing from 1 983 in revenue records and hence he dismissed the application for cancellation. Against this order of the trial Court a revision was preferred before the Addi­tional Commissioner who has made a ref­erence vide his order dated 16-12-1993 recommended therein that the reference be allowed and the order of the trial Court be set aside and the case be remanded back to it for fresh decision after affording an opportunity to both the parties for leading evidence.

(3.) THE learned trial Court considered the entire material on record and found that the name of Shardadeen was recorded in 1983 and continued thereafter. He fur­ther observed that this entry could not be corrected in proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act. A perusal of record reveals that the land in question was not vacant and opened to allotment. As the name of Shardadeen was recorded in revenue records it could not be said that the entry was altogether farzi and wrong. The complainant could not adduce any evidence to provide their version that they have acquired rights under Section 122-B (4-F) of the UPZA and LR Act. The learned trial Court after a careful considera­tion of the evidence on record rejected the complaint and upheld the allotment made in favour of Shardadeen. The learned Addi­tional Commissioner has not adopted a cor­rect approach in the matter and has based his conclusion on presumption. In my opinion the trial Court had rightly refused to cancel the allotment. There is no ground to inter­fere in this revision.