STATE Vs. BHAROSEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are five references dated 30-4-1997 made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, with his recommendation that the revision petitions be allowed and the orders dated 11-4-1996, 30-4-1996 and 31-5-1996 be set aside. Since the facts and controversy involved in these reference are the same, these reference are being disposed of by this common judgment. Reference No. 84 of 1996-97/Jhansi shall be the leading case.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that on the Tehsil report, the learned trial Court passed an order on different dates in favour of the opposite parties concerning their entry as Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights over the suit land under Section 122-B (4-F) of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Aggrieved by this order, the State of U.P. preferred four revision petitions. The learned Additional Commissioner has made these references dated 30-4-97 with his aforesaid recommendation.

(3.) I have closely and carefully examined the submissions made by the learned DGC (R) appearing for the State of U.P. and the relevant records on file. On a close examination of the records, it is manifestly clear that proceedings under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act are of summary in nature and any declaration of title cannot be granted in favour of the opposite parties in the proceedings under Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act. The learned Additional Commissioner has properly analysed discussed and considered the relevant and material facts and circumstances of the instant case and has rightly recommended for setting aside the aforesaid orders passed by the learned trial Court on 11-4- 1996, 30-4-1996 and 31-5-1996 as this is incumbent upon the opposite parties to file a regular suit under Section 229-B of the Act to get their title declared by a Court of competent jurisdiction.