LALTI DEVI Vs. COMMISSIONER GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the order dated 15.6.1996 passed by Sub -Divisional Officer, Tamkuhiraj, District Padrauna now Kushi Nagar by which he has decided the Case No. 42 of 1994 under Section 123 (2) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.

(2.) THE facts leading to filing of the aforesaid application before the Sub -Divisional Officer and rejection thereof are that the respondents in the present writ petition have filed an application before the Sub -Divisional Officer as contemplated under . U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for change of the user of the land of agriculture to abadi on the ground that these persons are Lohar by caste and are agricultural labourers and thus entitled for the aforesaid land, which is occupied by them for residential purposes. The report was submitted by the Tehsildar. The Sub -Divisional Officer converted the user of the aforesaid respondents under the provisions of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The applicants raised an objection that the land was originally bhumidhari of Jagpal and the applicants have purchased half share of the aforesaid land and the declaration under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act can be given only to the land of bhumidhar and this application filed by Ramdhan and etc. was not maintainable and they were not eligible persons and, therefore, the order passed by Sub -Divisional Officer in their favour, was erroneous.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner tries to assail these findings but failed to demonstrate that the findings suffer from any error of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of learned single Judge of this Court in 1994 RD 395. To me, it appears that the aforesaid proposition of law is not applicable to the present case. Sub -Divisional Officer as well as revisional court have committed no error.