BAKHERU Vs. INDRA DEO ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE references, dated 30-4-1992, made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi arise out of the revition petition No. 24 of 1991 and 118 of 1989/Jaunpur, whereby it has been recommended that the Revision Petition No. 24 of 1991 be allowed, the order, passed by the learned trial Court be set aside and the case be remanded to the learned trial Court for decision afresh on merits, according to law, after affording an opportunity to adduce evidence and to file objections to the parties, concerned.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the instant reference are that Bakheru moved a complaint under Rule 115-P of the UPZA and LR Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) for cancellation of the lease, granted in favour of Sursatti, on the ground of irregular allotment. On notice the allottee, concerned filed objection, inter aliea pleading that the allotment in question has been made validly in accordance with Rules on the subject. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite formalities, maintained the lease in question, except two decimel area of the same. The complainant went up in revision before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has made this reference to the Board with his aforesaid recommendation. So far as the other revision petition is concerned, the same has been dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner, vide his order, dated 17-5-1990.

(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the parties as well as the reference, made by the learned Additional Commissioner and have also scanned the record, on file. A bare perusal of the reference, made by the learned Additional Commissioner clearly reveals that since no opportunity to adduce evidence, both oral and documentary, was afforded to the parties concerned in the instant proceedings for cancellation of the lease, in question, the same were not in consonance with that spirit of law. Moreover, it is noticeable that the instant cancellation proceedings were initiated against only one person, Sursatti, leaving the other allottess. As a matter of fact, allotment to three persons, who were granted leases by the same resolution of the LMC and proceedings against only one allottee, Sursatti, has been drawn in the instant case. It is the settled princip of law that if several allottees were granted the lease by the single resolution of the LMC, proceedings against all the allottees should be drawn and notice given accordingly and since the same has not been done in the instant case, the learned Additional Commissioner has rather very rightly recommended for remand of the case to the learned trial Court. I entirely agree with the views, expressed by him, as he has very logically and analytically discussed the matter, in question in depth and therefore, I am inclined to accept the reference, made by him. The contentions, raised by the learned Counsel for the opposite party, who has miserably failed to substantiate his claim, are rather untenable for the same reason.