HAR CHARAN SINGH Vs. GAON SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333-A of the UPZA and LR Act, preferred against the order dated 29-5-1995, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad arising out of a judgment and order, dated 30-5-1994 passed by the learned trial Court, in the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the instant proceedings were in­itiated on the report of the then SDO, concerned, dated 22-12-1991 as per which on 22-12-91 an allotment dated 6-12-1991 was approved in favour of Har Charan Singh Smarak Vidyalaya, Jairampur Sankali, Bijnor of the plots in dispute, as detailed in the order passed by the learned trial Court. The aforesaid SDO, con­cerned, found the aforesaid allotment ir­regular and against the relevant rules and regulations. The learned Additional Col­lector by means of his order dated 30-5-1994 maintained the aforesaid lease-granted in favour of Har Charan Singh Smarak Vidyalaya and rejected the aforesaid report dated 22-12-1991 sub­mitted by the SDO, concerned. Aggrieved by this order, a revision was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner has al­lowed the revision and set aside the aforesaid order dated 30-5-94, passed by the learned trial Court. Hence this second revision petition.

(3.) I have closely and carefully ex­amined the contentions, raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and relevant records on file. On a close scrutiny of the relevant records, it is amply clear that the suit land is the land of public utility which were reserved for pasture land etc. during the consolidation operations. Apart from this, over 8 acres land have been allotted in favour of the aforesaid institution. There is nothing on the record to show that this institution is a recognised institution. The learned lower revisional Court has properly examined the matter in question and has rightly set aside the aforesaid order dated 30-5-1994 passed by the learned trial Court and allowed the revision petition. The revisionist has miserably failed to establish its claim over the suit land. It is abundantly clear from a perusal of the records that the provisions of Rule 173 of the UPZA and LR Rules were also not complied with, while grant­ing the aforesaid leases in favour of the revisionist. The aforesaid impugned judg­ment and order dated 30-5-1994 passed by the learned trial Court has not been passed in correct perspective of law and as such the learned Additional Commissioner has not committed any error of law, fact or jurisdiction, in setting aside the aforesaid impugned order, dated 30-5-1994. To my mind, the aforesaid impugned order, dated 29-5-1994, is quite just, proper and well founded as well as wholly warranted in law and as such it must be maintained.