RAM PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the learned Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad in revision application against the order dated 3-10-72 by the learned trial court, cancelling the lease dated 8-6-1967 in favour of Ram Prasad under Sec. 198 (2) of Act I of 1951. A recommendation has been made that the impugned order be set aside and the lease in question be held valid.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and have also perused the record.

(3.) The objection was not filed by the State or the Gaon Sabha but on hearing the parties, the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned DGC (R) has pointed out certain discrepancies in the procedure adopted by the Land Management Committee in granting the lease which were not properly appreciated by the learned Additional Commissioner while making the recommendation. What has been done by the learned Additional Commissioner is re appreciation of the evidence and reversing the finding of fact arrived at by the learned trial court which the counsels argued, is out side the scope of revision. The learned Additional Commissioner has actually considered only the documentary evidence, i.e. the agenda and proceedings as the note showing the contents of proclamation. It has been pointed out that instead of seven days notice for the meeting only three days notice was given, as is clear from the documents. The proclamation was done on 5-6-1967 and on the same day agenda notice was circulated to the members and the meeting was held on 8-6-3967. The learned Additional Commissioner has differed from the learned trial court on the point whether the requirements of Rule 173 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act were complied with. Since the plot numbers are given in the agenda notice and the note of proclamation the learned Additional Commissioner held that Rule 173 was complied with in full and the observation of the learned lower court was incorrect. The Rule actually requires that the Land Management Committee shall announce by beat of drum in the circle of the Gaon Sabha in which the land is situate at least seven days before the date of meeting for admission of land, numbers of plots, their area and the date of which the admission thereto is to be made. Since there was only three days notice and the area was not given, even on the documentary evidence it is obvious that the substantial compliance of Rule 173 was not done.