DHAMPUR SUGAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred against the judgment and order, dated 24-4-2002, passed by the learned Collector, Bijnor in a case under Section 167-A of the Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on the report of the Deputy Collector, Dhampur, proceedings under Section 167-A of the Act were initiated against the revisionist. It was reported that the Dhampur Sugar Mills had purchased the land, when it had more than 12-1/2 acres land on the date of the sale deeds and therefore, the sale deed in question, was hit under Section 154 of the Act as no permission was obtained from the State Government and the land in dispute deserves to vestin the State. On notice, the revisionist contested the proceedings by filing the objection to the effect that the land, in dispute, does not come within the definition of agricultural land, as it was abadi land and therefore, the provisions of Sections 154-157-A and 168-A are not applicable to the instant case. The learned Collector, Bijnor after hearing the parties concerned, declared the land, in dispute, as the property of the state Government. It is against order that the instant revision petition has been preferred before the Board.

(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the points, raised before me, by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also perused the papers on file. A bare perusal of the papers on file clearly reveals that the learned Collector was perfectly justified in rendering the impugned order. It has been observed by him that the parties were afforded due and adequate opportunity of being heard. Since the revisionist had sufficient land on the date of the purchase of the land, in dispute and the same was purchased without obtaining the permission of the State Government the same was liable to vest in the State. I entirely agree with the views, expressed by him and do not see any reason to interfere with the same. The findings, recorded by the learned trial Court are quite logical and perfectly in order. The contentions, raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist, are not tenable, who has miserably failed to get up a prima facie case, in favour of its admission. The case law, cited by him is of no help, as the facts of the referred case and the instant case differ altogether and therefore, this revision petition deserves to be dismissed in limine.