SUKHRANI (DEAD) Vs. BHADAIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference dated 27-1-1997 made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in respect of the revision petition No. 66/13 of 1992-93, Banda - Sukhrani v. Bhadaiya etc., arising out of the judgment and order dated 27-2-1993, 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 revision petition be allowed, the impugned order be set aside and the case be remanded to the learned trial Court for decision afresh on merits according to law, in the light of the observations made by him in his referring order.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant reference are that Sukhrani moved an application under Section 198(4) of the Act for the cancellation of the lease, in question, granted in favour of the opposite parties, Gorey Lal and Bhadaiya, inter-alia pleading that since the Gaon Sabha had no locus standi to grant such lease, the same is irregular and should be cancelled because the implementation of the order dated 20-1-1979, passed by the SOC, concerned, in revision No. 462/444/75, by which Malkhan Singh was declared bhumidhar of the land, in dispute, could not be ensured due to the de-notification under Section 52 of the UPCH Act and since the implementation of this order was done vide order dated 18-5-1989 under Rule 109, recording the name of the revisionist in the village records, the lease in question is irregular. Moreover, the allottees were not eligible persons for such allotment for one reason or the other. On notice, the opposite parties contested the proceedings, denying the allegations and inter-alia pleading that the proceedings are barred by limitation. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite formalities, rejected the application of the revisionist, vide its order dated 27-2-1993 and therefore, it is against this order that the revisionist went up in revision before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has referred the matter in question to the Board with his aforesaid recommendation.

(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also scanned the record on file. It is true that the case has been dealt with by the learned trial Court in a rather haphazard way. The learned Additional Commissioner has categorically observed that from the evidence on record, it transpires that the land in dispute was not the property of the Gaon Sabha, concerned at the time of its allotment and therefore, had it been so, the allotment, in question, becomes a nullity. Since at the revisional stage before the learned Additional Commissioner, some documents, which have bearing on the case, were filed in the light of which the case has not been decided, he was perfectly justified in recommending the case to be remanded to the learned trial Court for decision, afresh, on merits, according to law, in the light of the observations made by him in his referring order. I, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, am also fully convinced with the views, expressed by him and therefore, the recommendation, made by him, in his referring order very richly deserves acceptance in toto.