GULLU Vs. BUDDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner by his order dated 6-4-1996 passed in Revision No. 1648/343/A of 1989 district Mau recommending that the revision be allowed, the order dated 18-8-1989 passed by the trial Court be set aside.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that Gullu and others moved an application for cancellation of lease. The Additional Collector/C.R.O. by his order dated 29-3-1987 maintained the lease for an area of 80 karis out of plot No. 499 and cancelled the allotment for the remaining area which was in favour of Buddhu. In respect of plot No. 408 the trial Court did not pass any order on the ground that the matter concerning Rajbali was pending before the Board of Revenue. Thereafter Gullu moved an application under Section 151 CPC stating therein that the revision pending before the Board of Revenue had been dismissed on 14-8-1987 and hence the decision be also taken in respect of the allotment concerning Rajbali. The learned trial Court, however, recalled the earlier order dated 29-3-1987 and rejected the application for cancellation itself. Feeling aggrieved by this order Gullu filed a revision before the learned Additional Commissioner who has made the present reference.

(3.) A perusal of the record reveals that by its order dated 29-3- 1987 the trial Court did not pass any order in respect of allotment concerning Rajbali on the ground that matter relating to him was pending before the Board of Revenue. It also passed an order maintaining the allotment in respect of 80 karis and cancelled the allotment for the remaining area. When an application was moved by Gullu after rejection of the revision by the Board of Revenue, the trial Court should have considered the effect of the order of the Board of Revenue and passed a suitable orders in respect of the allotment made in favour of Rajbali. The order passed by the trial Court recalling its earlier order dated 29-3-1987 and rejecting the application for cancellation itself is arbitrary and against the provisions of law. The view taken by the learned Additional Commissioner is correct and I agree with him.