ROHAN Vs. SHIV KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the judgment dated 21-5-97 passed by learned Commissioner, Bareilly Division, in Revision No. 51/98 of 1996 district Shahjahanpur arising out of proceeding under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act. By the impugned order the learned Commissioner rejected the revision and upheld the order dated 25-9-95 passed by Additional Collector in Case No. 114.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that proceedings were initiated on the application of Smt. Shiv Kaur. On issue of notice Rohan filed objection stating therein that the allotment in his four had been validly made. The learned Additional Collector by his order dated 25-9-95 cancelled the allotment. Feeling aggrieved by this order Rohan filed a revision before the learned Commissioner which was rejected. Hence, the present revision.

(3.) I may be mentioned at the very outset that the order in proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act was passed by the learned Additional Collector on 25-9-95. In view of 1995 ACJ HCDB page 1313 only Collector had the jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings and Additional Collector did not have jurisdiction to pass any order in these proceedings. On merits too, the Courts below have erred in cancelling the allotment of the revisionist. It is note worthy that the complaint made by Smt. Shiv Kaur is time barred. Apart from this Smt. Shiv Kaur could not claim any right for herself in these proceedings. A note may also be taken of the fact that the report made in the case is not admissible in evidence as it has not been proved according to law and no opportunity to cross- examine the witness was given to the person concerned. In these circumstances the report could not be read in evidence. The Courts below acted illegally in the exercise of their jurisdiction in cancelling the allotment of the revisionist. There is nothing on record to suggest that the allottee was a permanent employee of Nagar Mahapalika on the date of allotment. In these circumstances he came within the category of eligible persons and allotment made in his favour was valid.