RAM CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference has been made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Bareilly by his order dated 6-7-98 passed in Revision No. 138/173-A/96 recommending that the revision be allowed and the order dated 28-7-95 passed by learned Upper Collector Bareilly be set aside.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the present proceedings under Section 168-A of the UPZA and LR Act were started on the basis of a complaint moved by one Indrajit Oberoi. The complainant alleged that the transfer in question was void and the land would vest in the State. The learned Additional Collector passed an order on 28-7-95 directing that the land would vest in the State. Feeling aggrieved by this order Ram Chandra and others filed a revision before the learned Additional Commissioner which has resulted in the present reference.

(3.) THE learned Additional Commissioner considered the matter at a considerable length and found that the transaction made by Ahmad Husain favour of Ram Chandra and others was valid and according to law and that the provisions of Section 154 of the UPZA and LR Act had not been contravened. He made a mention of the fact that Ahmad Husain obtained bhumidhari sanad and had validly transferred the land to the revisionists. As Ahmad Husain had executed the deed in question after obtaining bhumidhari sanad as provided by law there was no question of any transfer by a sirdar and hence the transfer was valid. The view taken by the learned Additional Commissioner is according to law and is perfectly correct.