STATE Vs. PARAS RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred against the judgment and order, dated 30-11-1993, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in Appeal No. 38/137 of 1991/92 Jhansi, allowing the same and setting aside the judgment and order, dated 27-2-1992, passed by the learned trial Court in a Suit No. 11 of 1990-91 under Section 161 of the Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant revision petition are that Parsuram etc. instituted a suit under Section 161 of the Act for exchange of his land Plot No. 96/0.085 with Plot No. 243/0.178, belonging to the Gaon Sabha, concerned, inter-alia, alleging that they, being the bhumidhar with transferable rights of their plot in question and the Plot No. 243, being the Gaon Sabha property and recorded as banjar, which is adjascent to his land, the exchange may be permitted as the difference in the valuation of the two plots is not more than 10%. A report was called for from the tehsildar, concerned. On notice, the Pradhan of the Goan Sabha, concerned, filed written statement on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, admitting the claim of the plaintiffs. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite formalities, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, vide its order, dated 27-2-1992. The plaintiffs went up in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has allowed the same and set aside the order, passed by the learned trial Court, vide his judgment and order, dated 30-11-1993 and therefore, it is against this order that the instant revision petition has been preferred by the State before the Board.

(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments, advanced before me by the learned DGC (R) and have also scanned the record on file. A bare perusal of the record on file clearly reveals that the learned trial Court was perfectly justified in denying the exchange, in question. As a matter of fact, a report was called for from the tehsildar, concerned, who has reported that as per the report of the land record inspector, dated 20-4-1991, the LMC, concerned has passed a resolution in favour of the exchange on 14-4-1990 and the difference in valuation of the two plots, in question, is not more then 10%. It has also been reported that the village, concerned has undergone consolidation operations and out of Plot No. 243, allotment of leases have also been granted in favour of Ramesh and Dhannu, leaving 0.178 area out of this plot. The learned trial Court has observed that since the village has undergone consolidation operations, the exchange of the remaining, 24 hectare are only would hit the provisions of Section 168-A of the Act, which is against the Rules on the subject and any lead to future litigation with the lease-holders. Moreover, no permission for the same has been obtained from the tehsildar, concerned as per Rule 110-A of the UPZA and LR Rules and therefore, it rejected the exchange sought for, vide its order, dated 27-2-1992. The learned Additional Commissioner, to the contrary, has swayed away on flimsy grounds, who has observed that since the difference in the valuation is not more than 10%, both the parties would be benefitted by this exchange and has allowed the same. It is noticeable that he has only narrated what the report says and without recording his own independent finding, came to the conclusion abruptly that the orders, passed by the learned trial Court deserves to be set aside. Such an order cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be allowed to sustain in law, as the learned Court of appeal ought to have met each and every finding, recorded by the learned trial Court, which has dealt with the matter, in question at length, in an analytical and logical manner. This is all the more necessary in a judgment of reversal and therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Additional Commissioner, was not justified in rendering the impugned order. The exchange was rightly denied by the learned trial Court which was unnecessarily allowed by the learned Additional Commissioner, without assigning any independent finding therefor and therefore, this revision petition very richly deserves to be allowed.