RAM RATI Vs. SULEKH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred against the judgment and order, dated 26-2-1998, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, in Revision Petition No. 3 of 1997-98, arising out of the judgment and order, dated 5-9-1997, passed by the learned trial Court, in proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts, giving rise to the instant revision petition, are that on the complaint of Sulekh Singh and Mukh Ram for cancellation of the lease, granted in favour of the revisionist, proceeding under Section 198(4) of the Act, were initiated against the allottees on the ground of irregular allotment as well as the allottees, being not eligible for allotment. On notice, the allottees contested the proceedings, denying the allegations and inter-alia pleading that the allotment was made to them as per the Rules on the Subject. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite formalities, rejected the application, moved by the complainants and maintained the lease, in question, vide its order, dated 5-9-1997. Aggrieved by this order, Sulekh etc. went up in revision before the learned Additional Commissioner, which was allowed and the order of the learned trial Court was set aside, cancelling the lease, granted in favour of the allottees vide his order dated 26-2-1998. It is against this order that the instant revision petition has been filed by Smt. Ram Rati etc. before the Board.

(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also scanned the records on file. A bare perusal of the record clearly reveals that the learned Additional Commissioner has observed in his impugned order that since the revisionist has not taken the plea of the complainant being not an aggrieved person before the learned trial Court, this point has no force as one of the complainants, Mukh Ram who was eligible for the allotment was certainly an aggrieved person. In respect of the merits of the case, it has further been observed that changing the nature of talab into cultivable land, was not proper, as the SDO, who had passed the order, was not competent to do so and therefore, the same was aginst the provisions of law. Moreover, a pond cannot be allotted to any person with non-transferable rights. It is also not out of the place to mention here that the procedure, adopted for the allotment, in question was also against the requirements of law, as munadi was not made in accordance with the Rules. As per Rule 173 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules, such munadi should have been done before at least seven days of the meeting for the purpose.