BAL KRISHNA Vs. RAM KHELAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the learned Addition­al Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Al­lahabad passed in revision petition No. 12 of 1993 recommending that the revision petition be allowed and the order of the trial Court dated 30-8-1993 be set aside.

(2.) BAL Krishna alias Balram and others moved an application under Rule 115-P of the UPZA and LR Rules for cancellation of the allotment made in favour of Ram Khelawan and others. It was alleged that the allotment was irregular and deserves to be cancelled because the land in question is public utility land and is recorded as TALAB. The trial Court held that the allottees are Harijans and found the allotments to be in order. It cancelled the application moved by Bal Krishna alias, Balram and others. Feeling aggrieved by this order, Bal Krishna alias Balram and others have filed this revision petition before the learned Additional Commis­sioner from which the present reference has arisen.

(3.) I have considered the arguments advanced before me by the learned Coun­sel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully. The learned Additional Commissioner after considering the evidence on record found that the land in question was recorded as TALAB and as such was public utility land. It is an admitted position of law that the allotment in respect of TALAB which are public utility land cannot be made. The learned Additional Commissioner after considering the entire material on record found that the allotment made in favour of the opposite party in respect of public utility land was illegal and could not be maintained. After perusing the record, I am in entire agreement with him.