GULAB Vs. STATE

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 13-11-1991, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in Revision Petition No. 57/127 of 1980-90, dismissed the same and confirming the judgment and order, dated 26-6-1989 passed by the learned trial Court in proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant revision petiton are that on the tehsil report, suo-moto, proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act were initiated against the allottee, concerned for the cancellation of the patta in question. It has been alleged that since the family of the allottee had 13.46 acres of land, which was in excess of the prescribed limit, the allotment, in question, was irregular and should be cancelled. On notice, the allottees contested the same, denying the allegations and inter alia, pleading that since they were landless agricultural labourers, the allotments in question, are quite valid. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite formalities, cancelled the allotment, vide its order dated 26-6-1989. The allottees went up in revision before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has dismissed the same, vide his order, dated 13-11-1991 and therefore, it is against these orders that the instant revision petition has been filed by them before the Board.

(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments, advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned DGC (R) and have also scanned the record on file. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention here that the LMC, concerned is a mandatory party to the proceedings in question under Section 198(4) of the Act. Here, in the instant case, a bare perusal of the record on file clearly reveals that the learned trial Court has itself observed that the case proceeded ex parte against the Gaon Sabha, concerned. There is not even an iota a in the judgments of the learned Courts below in respect of the LMC, being served with a show cause notice, as required in law. The law contemplates that a show cause notice under the signatures of the collector, concerned should be served upon the allottee as well as the LMC, concerned. There is nothing on the record to show that such a notice has been served upon the LMC, concerned nor is there anything to indicate that it has been impleaded as a party to the proceedings, in question as required by law and therefore, I am of the considered opinion that this is rather a fit case to be remanded to the learned trial Court for decision, afresh, on merits, according to law, after impleading the LMC, concerned, as a party to the proceedings in question and affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties, concerned. Needless to say, since this is rather one of the oldest cases, the learned trial Court is, at least, expected to dispose it of expeditiously.