GIRISH CHANDRA Vs. RAM AUTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision filed against the judgement and order dated 29-8-89 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad in revision No. 162 of 78 arising from the order dated 27-4-78 passed by the Additional Collector, Farukhabad in case no. 122 of 77-78 under Sec. 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act hereinafter to be called the "Act."

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that proceedings under Sec. 198 (4) of the Act were sought to be initiated on the application given by opposite-parties Ram Avtar and several others, residents of village Guran Shadi Nagar Pargana Shamshabad East, district Farrukhabad The allegations included the facts that the complainant Ram Avtar is the Up-Pradhan of the village and others are the members of the Gaon Sabha and the Pradhan of the village Sri Hansraj managed to get plot no. 81 (area 2.50 acres of the village allotted to his son Ram Niwas, which was cancelled and thereafter he again managed to secure permission in favour of his other sons from the S.D.O. in favour of the plantation or trees over the same land for which no meeting of the L. M. C. was held nor any agenda or notice was issued. It was further alleged that the land in dispute of plot no. 81 along with other plots is land of public utility and is used as Khaliyan and as pasture land by the inhabitants of the village. It was disclosed in the complaint that plot no. 81 (3 acres) for which permission has been obtained cannot be leased out because the Gaon Sabha land is less than 8% of the total area. Notices were issued and objections were filed by the Revisionists Girish Chandra and Santosh Chandra strongly opposing the initiation of proceedings under Sec. 198 (4) of the Act on die grounds that no allotment of the Gaon Sabha land has actually been made in their favour and the question of its cancellation naturally does not arise it was disclosed m the objections that under the Government scheme of Rural afforestation and plantation of trees as a campaign necessary permission was obtained for doing plantation over plot no. 81 (3 acres) of the village and thus there has been a contract between the revisionist Girish Chandra and Santosh Lnandra and opposite-parties, on the one hand and State Government of U P through the S.D.O. on the other. It was further urged and since it "is simply a case of licence and not of allotment of Gaon Sabha land, the provisions of Sec. 198 (4) of the Act are not attracted and it was particularly mentioned in the objections that the objector has got no concern with the land in dispute so far as the rights and title are concerned which shall always remain vested in the Gaon Sabha. After necessary inquiry the Additional Collector Farrukhabad under his order dated 27-4-78 held that since the opposite-parties who had obtained permission for plantation are the sons of the Pradhan of the village and no permission under Sec. 28 (C) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act was obtained and since there is no provision under the rules for the execution of such a contract for making such an allotment, the same were cancelled by the Additional Collector. Feeling aggrieved by this order the revisionist preferred revision in the court of the Additional Commissioner which has also been dismissed making way to the present revision under consideration before this court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record.