PHOOL SINGH Vs. JAI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a ref­erence dated 24-2-1993 made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad in respect of the revision petition No. 4 of 1992-93/Moradabad with the recommen­dation that the revision be allowed, the order dated 24-9-1992 passed by the learned trial Court be set aside and Phool Singh be declared bhumidhar with non-transferable rights over the land in suit.

(2.) BRIEFLY and relevant facts of the case are that the revisionist, Phool Singh moved an application dated 16-1-89 with the prayer that the lease granted in favour of the opposite party No. 1, Jai Singh be set aside and his title and possession be declared. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite formalities has rejected the aforesaid application as it found that the aforesaid lessee Jai Singh was eligible for the allotment. Aggrieved by this order a revision was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner has made this reference with his aforesaid recommendation.

(3.) I have closely and carefully ex­amined the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the relevant records on file. A bare perusal of the record reveals that the learned lower revisional Court has not detailed all the ingredients in the interim order dated 24-2-93 necessary 1'or the benefit to be given to the revisionist under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act. As per the provisions contained under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act, it an agricultural labourer belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is in occupation of the land vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 117 of the Act having occupied it from before June 30,1985 and the land so occupied together with the land, if any, held by him from before the said date as bhumidhar sirdar or asami does not exceed 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres) then no action under this section shall be taken by the LMC or Collector against such labourer and it shall be deemed that he has been admitted as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights of the land under Section 195. The learned Additional Com­missioner has not mentioned as to the land occupied by the revisionist from before June 30, 1985 and the land so occupied togelhcr with the land if any held by him from before the said date as bhumidhar sirdar or asami. He has not discussed the matter whether the land held by the revisionist docs not exceed 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres) or not. The learned lower revisional Court has merely recommended for declaring the revisionist as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights whereas for declaration, the revisionist should file a regular suit under Section 229-B of the Act. The case law referred to on behalf of the revisionist is so any help to the revisionist. 4. In view of the discussions made hereinbefore, I find that this reference is not worthy of being accepted and the revisionist is liable to be remanded to the learned trial Court for re-examining the (acts and circumstances in the light of the claims of the revisionist and the observa­tions made here in above.