SHER SINGH Vs. L.M.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of UPZA and LR Act ( here in after in short referred to as the Act) preferred against the judgment and order dated 30-3-1998 passed by the learned lower revisional Court arising out of an order dated 15-9-1994 passed by the learned trial Court on the tehsil report of the same date.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the then tchsildar Nagina, district Binjor submitted a report dated 15-9-1994 to the SDO concerned seeking his ap­proval concerning some modification in the earlier order dated 13-9-93 passed by the learned SDO. The learned SDO con­cerned to the aforesaid proposal of the tehsildar concerned the same day. Ag­grieved by this order a revision was preferred. The learned Additional Com­missioner has dismissed the aforesaid revision on 30-3-1998. Hence this second revision petition.

(3.) I have carefully and closely ex­amined the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and the relevant records on file. On a close scrutiny of the records it is abundantly clear that the SDO concerned had approved the proposal for granting the leases to the certain allottees vide his order dated 13-9-1994. But on the report dated 15-9-1994 submitted by the Tehsildar concerned necessary modifica­tions were approved vide his order dated 15-9-1994 as certain plots were recorded as Rasta, Talub, graveyard, Nali etc. The learned lower revisional Court has rightly dismissed the revision as no patent error or law or jurisdiction has been committed by it. To my mind, the aforesaid order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner is quite just proper and in consonance with the provisions of law. I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the case laws referred to by him are of no avail to the revisionist.