BRIJ KISHORE Vs. GAON SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. P. Pandey, J. This is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act preferred against the order dated 28-7-1998 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad arising out of an order dated 7-3-1998 passed by the tehsildar concerned to proceedings under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act No. I of 1951 in respect of the land situate in village Mirzapur Shomali tehsil Hasanpur district Moradabad.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that on a complaint moved on behalf of the revisionist, Brij Kishore under Section 186 of the UPZA and LR Act, there proceedings were initiated in the Court of the tehsildar concerned. By means of the aforesaid application the revisionist Brij Kishore prayed that the lease was granted in favour of Jasram and Makkhan in 1383 F but the possession over the suit land was not taken of by them and as such their names be expunged from the aforesaid disputed land and the name of the revisionist, Brij Kishore be recorded as he is in possession over the disputed land for the last 4 years. The Tehsildar Hasanpur passed an order of abandonment in respect of the suit land and also ordered the name of the revisionist to be expunged and the name of the Gaon Sabha concerned to be recorded over the disputed land. It was also ordered by the tehsildar concerned to send a report to the SDO concerned for recording the name of the revisionist, Brij Kishore over the disputed land as bhumid- har with non-transferable rights. Ag grieved by this order. A restoration application was moved and the documentary evidence was adduced in support of the same. The learned trial Court set aside the earlier order dated 16-9-1998 and restored the case to its original number. On 30-1-1998 after examining the relevant docu ments the learned trial Court ordered the proceedings under Section 186 of the UPZA and LR Act to be dropped. Ag grieved by this order a restoration applica tion was moved by the aforesaid Brij Kishore. This application was allowed and the case was fixed for inviting the objection. Against this order a revision petition was preferred. The learned Additional Com missioner has allowed the revision and set aside the aforesaid impugned order dated 7-3-1998 passed by the learned trial Court. Hence this second revision petition.

(3.) HAVING closely scrutinised the mat ter in question, 1 find that the learned lower revisional Court has examined the relevant material facts and circumstances of the instant case and has correctly al lowed the revision and set aside the order dated 7-1-1998 passed by the learned trial Court. No error of fact law or jurisdiction has been committed by the learned Addi tional Commissioner in allowing the aforesaid revision petition preferred by Jasram and others. To my mind the aforementioned impugned order dated 28-7-1998 is quite sustainable well-founded and wholly warranted in law which must be sustained. I find no infirmity in the aforesaid impugned order so as to warrant any interference in this revision petition by this Court. I find no force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist who has miserably failed to substantiate his claims over the suit land.