RAM KHELAWAN Vs. SHEO MURAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order dated 23-10-96 passed by learned Additional Com­missioner Varanasi in Revision No. 23 of 1994 district Bhar ohi arising out of a suit under Section 229-B of the U.PZ.A. and L.R. Act. By the impugned order the learned Additional Commissioner dis­missed the revision and upheld the order of the trial Court.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that Ram Khelawan instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the U.PZ.A. and L.R. Act against Gaon Sabha and State. He prayed for the declaration that he was bhumitlhar of the new plot No. 89 which had been formed out of old plot No. 83 (area O-12-16). Proceedings went on ex- pane against State and Gaon Sahha. The plaintiff ad­duced oral and documentary evidence in support of his version. The trial Court by its order dated 22-6-94 decreed the suit. The State or Gaon Sabha did not file any application for restoration or appeal or revision against this order. On 6-9-94 one Sheo Mural moved an application for set­ting aside the order on the ground that he had been in possession over the land in question for a period of 26 years and that his Abadi existed on the land in question. He alleged that Ram Khelawan had managed "to gel afarzi enlry made in his favour after the close of consolidation operation. The irial Court by its order dated 25-10-94 allowed the application for selling aside the order. Revision filed by Ram Khelawan was also dismissed. Hence the present revision.

(3.) THE application for setting aside the order dated 22-6-94 was moved on 6-9-94 and is clearly beyond time. The applicant did not adduce any explanation worth the name to justify the delay in filing the application for setting aside the order. It is also note worthy that the suit was brought against Gaon Sabha and State who did not put in contest. They did not move any application for restoration. They also did not challenge the impugned order in appeal or revision. Sheo Mural was a stranger to the proceedings and had no locus standi to move an application for setting aside the order. The view taken by the learned Additional Commissioner that Sheo Mural can represcnl the interest of Gaon Sabha and can apply for restora­tion, is rather queer. In the present case Gaon Sabha through its Pradhan was a party and had been served a notice, when the Gaon Sabha did not file any applica­tion Sheo Mural could not file an applica­tion for restoration on behalf of Gaon Sabha. The trial Court had passed the order dated 26-6-94 after considering the material on record and the order was on merits. The learned trial Court as well as the learned Additional Commissioner acted illegally in passing.the impugned orders which call for inlerference in revision.