HAZI NIZAMUDDIN Vs. AMIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. P. Pandey 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 7-10-2002 passed by the learned trial Court in Case No. 17 of 2001-02/varanasi under Section 122-C (6) of the Act, dismissing the same and dropping the proceedings in question.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts, giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on the application dated 28- 6-2002 moved by Nijamuddin and Abdul Hamid, proceedings under Section 122-C of the Act were initiated against Amin etc. It has been pleaded by the applicants that they are owners possession of the land and grove in dispute and the pradhan in collusion with the opposite parties, Amin etc. allotted the Rasta in question in their favour despite the fact that the passage is being used as Rasta by the regional public; that the opposite parties are the residents of other district and therefore, the allotment in question should be cancelled. On this application, a report was called for from the tehsildar concerned and on noitce, the opposite parties contested the proceedings by filing their written statements, denying the allegations. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite formalities, did not find any justification for the cancellation of the lease in question and dropped the proceedings vide its order dated 7-10-2002. It is against this order that the instant revision petition has been filed by the applicants before the Board.

(3.) HAVING given my thoughtful consideration to the matter in question, it is crystal clear that since the view of two Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble High Court, expressed in the aforesaid two case laws, is in favour of the bar of Section (7) of Section 122-C of the Act to the maintainability of the revision petition filed against an order passed by the Collector under Section 122-C (6) of the Act, I am of the considered opinion that a revision, filed against an order, passed by the Collector under Section 122-C (6) of the Act, would not lie as his order is final and the porovisions of Sections 333 and 333-A of the Act is not applicable in relation thereto and in this view of the matter, this revision petition is clearly not maintainable and therefore, very richly deserves dismissal outright in limine.