RAM SAKHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA & LR. Act (here in after referred to as the Act), preferred against the judg­ment and order, dated 28-1-1998, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, arising out of an order, dated 29-9-1995 and 19-2-1997 passed by the learned trial Court in proceedings under Section 161 of the Act.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that an application under Section 161 of the Act was moved on behalf of Dharamshala Jatvans through its President/Mantri/Harijan Utthan and Kalyan Samiti, tehsil Thakurdwara district Moradabad, with the allegations that the Dharamshala Jatvans is looked after by the Harijan Utthan and Kalyan Samiti (here in after referred to as the Samiti) but Jatvans temple, situated in the same locality, is at long distance from the aforesaid temple, while the same is also managed by the Samiti;that the opposite party Smt. Ram Sakhi and Smt. Chandrawati are bhumidhars in posses­sion over plot No. 256, admeasuring .364 hectare, situate in Fatehullahganj locality, which is in front of the aforementioned Jatvans leinplc on the main ro'adjthat the Dharamshala Jatvans is also in possession over the proposed plot No. 268, admeasur­ing .42 hectare and both the parties have given their consent in writing for the proposed exchange of the aforesaid plots and as such, the exchange of plot No. 268 area 0.170 hectare be allowed to be ex­changed with an area of .170 hectare of plot No. 256 of the same Mau/a. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite formalities, has allowed the aforesaid exchange on 29-9-1995, on the basis of the tehsil report, dated 19-9-1995, as per which the tchsildar, concerned has recommended for the aforementioned proposed exchange. Later on, 01 13-11-1995, one Ghasi Ram and others filed a restoration application before the learned trial Court for setting aside the aforesaid order of exchange, passed by it and the same has been rejected by the learned trial Court on 19-2-1997, on the ground that the applicants were neither parties to the suit nor are mandatory parties to it. Ag­grieved by this order, a revision petition was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner by means of his order 28-1-1998, has allowed the revision petition and quashed the orders, dated 29-9-1995 and 19-2-1997. Hence this second revision petition.

(3.) I have carefully and closely con­sidered the contentions, raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also gone through the relevant records on file. On a close scrutiny of the record, it is crystal clear that the learned trial Court by means of its order dated 19-2-1997, has rightly rejected aforesaid restoration application moved by Ghasi Ram and others, as they were neither par­ties to the suit, in question, nor they are mandatory parties to it. They have miserably failed to show any cogent ground to prove their locus-standi to the matter in question. On 29-9-1995, the learned trial Court allowed the aforesaid proposed exchanged between the parties. It has properly analysed, discussed and considered the relevant and material facts and circumstances of the instant case in correct perspective of law. It has correctly based its aforesaid order on the report dated 19-8-1995, submitted by the Tehsil­dar concerned who has recommended for the aforesaid proposed exchange. As per the report of the lekhpal, concerned, dated 23-7-1994, there is no any pond (Talab) on the spot and this land is suitable for Abadi (Dharamshala). The Tehsil report also refers to the location of the plot No. 256 which lay in between the Dharamshala and the Samiti and if exchange is permitted, t he properties of the Samiti would be compact and more conveniently managed. The aforesaid report also mentions that the nature and valuation of both the plots are the same and there is no difference in the rental value of the properties and as such, 1 see no any infirmity in the aforesaid order, passed by the learned trial Court. The site plan appended to the aforesaid Tehsil report, clearly shovys that by way of the aforesaid proposed exchange, the Jatvan Abadi and temple would adjoin the aforesaid proposed exchanged land and none of the parties would feel aggrieved by the aforesaid exchange.