STATE Vs. HALKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference, dated 23-12-1989, made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in Revision Petition No. 66/76 of 1987-88, Lalitpur, arising out of the order, dated 4-4-1985 passed by the learned trial Court, in proceedings under Section 198(4) of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), recommending that the impugned order, dated 4-4-1985, be set aside and the allotment, made in favour of Halka in respect of Plot Nos. 319/4.00 and 677/O.76 be cancelled.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant reference are that on the basis of the tehsil report, dated 18-8-1982, the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act for cancellation of the lease, in question, were initiated by the learned trial Court on the ground of allotment, being irregular. On notice, the allottee contested the same, denying the allegations. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite formalities, discharged the notice and therefore, the State of U.P. went up in revision before the learned Additional Commissioner who has made the instant reference to the Board with his aforesaid recommendation.

(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments, advanced before me by the learned DGC (R) and the learned Counsel for the opposite party and have also scanned the record, on file. A bare perusal of the referring order, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner clearly reveals that the allottee had 14.25 acres of asami land. As per the allottee, out of this area, only 4-5 acres of land is cultivable, while the remaining is a ditch and therefore, the allotment, in question, has been made as per the Rules on the subject, as it then were. The learned Additional Commissioner has rather very rightly observed that the land, which is a pit, should not remain in the khata of the allottee as and of the same ought to have been converted into a talab and therefore, the allotment, in question is irregular. The recommendation, made by the learned Additional Commissioner is, therefore, perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and as such, the same very richly deserves to be accepted.