HORI LAL Vs. KISHORI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition under Sec. 333 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act preferred against the order, dated 11.6.1998, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, arising out of a judgment and order dated 7.8.1997. passed by the learned trial court in proceedings, initiated under Sec. 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.

(2.) Brief and relevant facts of the case are that an application under Sec. 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was moved on behalf of Bal Kishan and others, with the prayer that the land of rasta, as detailed at the foot of the aforesaid application dated 6.2.1996, allotted to the opposite parties, be cancelled. The learned trial court, after completing the requisite formalities, dismissed the aforesaid application on 7.8.1997. Aggrieved by this order, a revision petition was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner, by means of her order, dated 11.6.1998. allowed the revision petition. Hence this second Revision petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the records, on file. For the revisionist, it was contended that the order, dated 11.6.1998. passed by the learned lower revisional court, is arbitrary and without jurisdiction which suffers from jurisdictional error; that it is bad in the eye of law and against the evidence, on record; that the learned trial court has passed the aforesaid judgment and order on the basis of cogent evidence, led by the parties concerned and as such, the aforesaid impugned order be set aside; that the aforesaid order, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner is quite against the provisions of law; that the learned lower revisional court should have remanded the case for spot inspection of the disputed land and as such, the aforesaid Impugned order be set aside and the order dated 7.8.1997 passed by the learned trial court be maintained. In support of his contentions, he has cited case law, in 1994 RD 118 (BR). But this case law has not been produced for perusal, as yet. In reply, the learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the disputed land is recorded as rasta in revenue records and as such, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner should be sustained.