VISHNU PRASAD Vs. PANCHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by Vishnu Prasad and another against the order dated 8-11-99 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham, Banda in revision No. 149/97 of 98-99 passed by learned Additional Collector, Chitrakoot Dham, Banda in a proceeding under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that allotment of land have been made in favour of Pancha and three others. Matauna and two others moved an application for cancellation under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act. According to them land in question was Talab and Bhita and land of public utility and could not be allotted. The learned trial Court have an opportunity of adducing evidence to both the parties and after hearing it found that the land in question was Talab, Bhita and land of public utility and could not be allotted to any one and hence it cancelled the application. Pancha and others filed a revision before the learned Additional Commissioner who has set aside the order of the trial Court on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to try the case and also on the ground that the proceedings were time barred. Hence the present revision.

(3.) IN the present case the learned trial Court dealt with the proceedings and found that the allotment in question concerning plots which were Talab, Bhita and Rasta on the spot and land of public utility. It took entire material on record into consideration and recorded reasons in support of his order. The learned Additional Commissioner has not taken the material on record into consideration in a proper manner. He has dealt with the matter in a ship shod way and has observed that the proceedings are beyond time. He has not specified any reason in support of his view. As a matter of fact the burden lay on the allottees to show that the allotment in question had been made validly and that they were eligible persons entitled to obtain the allotment. In the present case, the allottees failed to establish these important factors. As the land in question is Talab, Bhita and Rasta and is naturally land of public utility no useful purpose would be served by remanding the case to the Collector. In these circumstances I am inclined to hold that the order passed by the Court of first instance concerning the allotment is just and proper and should be maintained.