LAWS(ALL)-2001-3-130

STATE Vs. KARAN SINGH

Decided On March 19, 2001
STATE Appellant
V/S
KARAN SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is refer­ence made by the learned Additional Com­missioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in respect of revision petition No. 7/11 of 1995-96/Lalitpur State v. Kanm Singh and others, with the recommendation that the order dated 28-2-1995 passed by the learned trial Court be set aside and the matter in question be remanded to it for decision on merits, in accordance with law, in the light of the observations, made in the order,datcd 14-3-1 997, passed by him.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case arc that The proceedings for cancellation of the lease, granted in favour of the op­posite party, Karan Singh were initialed on Ihe Tehsil report under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act (here in after referred to as the Act) on the ground of irregular allotment. The learned trial Court "after completing the requisite formalities, found that no irregularity has been com­mitted while executing the aforesaid lease in favour of the opposite party and ordered the lease to be maintained as before and discharged the notice on 28-2-1995. Ag­grieved by the order, the State of U.P. preferred a revision petition. The learned lower rcvisional Court through its order, dated 14-3-1997 made a reference with ihe aforesaid recommendation. A written ob­jection has been filed on behalf of ihe aforesaid opposile parly, Karan Singh as pcrwhichil has been prayed that theorder dated 28-2-1995, passed by the learned trial Court be maintained, as the aforesaid order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner is totally against the Tacts and evidenec on record.

(3.) I have closely and carefully ex­amined the submissions, made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the relevant records on file. From a bare perusal of the record, it is crystal clear that the procedure prescribed by law has not been followed while executing the lease in favour of the opposite parly and as such, I entirely agree with the aforesaid recom­mendation made by the learned Addition­al Commissioner, in his order dated 14-3-1997. The opposite party, Karan Singh should not feel aggrieved as the reasonable and due opportunity of hearing and ad­ducing evidence in support of his claim would be availed by him before the learned trial Court which would decide the matter on merits strictly in consonance with the provisions of law after affording due op­portunity of hearing to the parties con­cerned.