JALIL HUSSAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal under Section 331 of the UPZA and LR Act (here in after referred to as the Act) preferred against the judg­ment and order dated 6-4-1993 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad arising out of an order dated 6-8-1992 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section .167/168 to the Act.

(2.) , Brief and relevant facts of the case are that as per the report of the Naibtehsildar concerned an area 0.242 hectare (which is less than 3.13 acres) out of the total area 1.409 hectares of plot No. 426 has been purchased by one Jalil Hussain and others and as such the file be sent to the SDO concerned for action under Sec­tion 168-A of the Act. The learned SDO concerned after completing the requisite Perspective of law and has recorded a clear formalities, found that formalities, found that the sale deed ex­ecuted in favour of the aforesaid Jalil Hus­sain and others is hit by the provisions of Section 167 of the Act. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner has dismissed the appeal too on 6-4-1993. Hence the is second appeal.

(3.) I have carefully and closely ex­amined the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and the relevant records on file. A close scrutiny of the records manifestly reveals that there a of the aforesaid Plot No. 426 purchased by the appellant Jalil Hussain is only .242 hectare which is clearly less than 3.125 hectares and as such it is crystal clear that the aforesaid transfer has been made in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The learned lower appellate Court has examined the points at issue in correct and categorical finding to the effect that the aforesaid sale deed executed in favour of Jalil Hussain, appellant is not in con­sonance with the provisions of law. I see no reason to disagree with the aforesaid con­clusion drawn by the learned Additional Commissioner and entirely .agree with the same and, therefore, come to the con­clusion that this second appeal is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed as the aforesaid impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below are quite just and proper as well as sustainable, well founded and wholly warranted in law and as such they must be sustained. To my mind, no illegality or irregularity has been com­mitted by the learned Courts below in passing the aforesaid impugned orders.