RAM NARAIN Vs. VISHNU DAYAL/STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these revisions have been filed against the order of the learned Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad dated 30-6-90. Therefore both the revisions are being consolidated and Revision No. 41 of 89-90, Sultanpur will be the leading case.

(2.) BRIEF facts of this case is that Vishnu Dayal has filed a complaint against Hira Lal and Ram Narain on the ground that Plot No. 151 has been leased out to the opposite parties. It was alleged in the complaint that both the allottees are not eligible persons for allotment of the house sites. They are the resident of the villages and they have sufficient accommodation at the time of the execution of the lease-deed. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court vide his order dated 26-10-88 has cancelled the lease in favour of Hira Lal and Ram Narain. Being aggrieved by this order of the learned trial Court both the revisionists has filed revision before the learned Additional Commissioner which too was dismissed on 30-6-90. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Commissioner the present revisions have been filed before the Board of Revenue.

(3.) IT has been argued by the learned Counsel for the revisionist Hira Lal that lease was sanctioned in favour of Hira Lal on 23-8-79 and Vishnu Dayal complainant has filed a complaint on 18-8-81. Tehsil report was called for on 29-12-81. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the revisionist Hira Lal that previously on 12-1-82 a proceeding was also started which was dropped by the Collector on 12-1-82 which has not been challenged and that order has become final. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the revisionist Hira Lal that the learned Additional Commissioner has held that Vishnu Dayal is an aggrieved party. The trial Court has held in his order that Vishnu Dayal is not an aggrieved party and the report of the Tahsildar has not been proved in the present case. In the present proceeding action can be taken only under Rule 115-P no action can be taken under Road Side Land Control Act. It has also been argued that after the allotment consolidation operations were held in the village and it has been argued that once the proceeding was dropped in the year 1982 no proceeding can be initiated. 1992 R.D. page 51 (D.B.), has been cited in this respect. It is also stated by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that L.M.C. was not made a party in the present case.