SANJYA DEVI Vs. PRADEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act (here in after referred to as the Act) preferred against the judgment and order dated 16-2-2000 passed by the learned Colleetor, Bijnor in case No. 149/97 under Section 198 (4) of the Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that on the application moved by Pradeep Singh and others, proceedings underSection 198 (4) of the Act for cancellation of the leases granted in favour of the opposite parties Tcjpal and others were initiated. The learned Additional Collector Bijnor after completing the requisite formalities, by means of his order dated 29-12-1995, rejected this application which gave rise to a revision petition. The learned Addition­al Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad made a reference to the Board with his recommendation that the order passed by the learned Additional Collec­tor, Bijnor be set aside and the leases in question be cancelled. The Board of Revenue after analysing, discussing and considering all the relevant facts and cir­cumstances of the case, set aside the im­pugned order and remanded the case to the learned trial Court for decision afresh according to law. On remand the learned Collector, Bijnor after completing the req­uisite formalities set aside the allotment order dated 1-10-1994. It is against this order that this revision petition has been preferred before the Board.

(3.) I have closely and carefully ex­amined the submissions made before me by the learned Counsel for the parties and the relevant records on file. A bare perusal of the record makes it amply clear that the learned trial Court has properly and thoroughly analysed, considered and dis­cussed the relevant and material facts cir­cumstances and the evidence on record of the instant case and has recorded a clear and categorical finding to the effect that the order in respect of the allotments in question deserves to be set aside as the same has been passed without observing the requisite formalities prescribed by law. No munadi as required by law has been done nor were khasra numbers disclosed in the agenda the which compliance of mandatory in law. Moreover, priority list of eligible persons for allotment was also not prepared properly as the names of aggrieved persons could not find place in this list. It is also noticeable that Jagdish Lal who is said to have made the munadi, has filed two affidavits which are self con­tradictory and as such no credence can be placed on his version. As a matter of fact, plot No. 371 is recorded as TALAB which is a land of public utility under Section 132 of the Act and as such the same cannot be allotted.