SIAWATI Vs. SHIV NATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to the Act), preferred against the judgment and order, dated 21-1-1994, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in revision Petition No. 206/300 of 1991-92/Banda, dismissing the same and confirming the judgment and order, dated 19-8-1992, 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 petition are that on the application of Shiv Nathi, proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act were initiated against the present revisionist etc., for cancellation of the lease, granted in their favour, on the ground of irregular allotment, during the pendency of which an application was moved on behalf of the revisionist on 12-2-1992 with the prayer to decide the preliminary issues first, in respect of the point of res-judicata and the proceedings, being barred by limitation. Objections were filed by the complainant on 25-5-1992, praying for the rejection of the aforesaid application. The learned trial Court, vide its order, dated 10-8-1992, rejected the application, in question, and ordered the case to proceed further, against which a revision petition was preferred by the revisionist before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has dismissed the same vide his judgment and order, dated 21-1-1994 and therefore, it is against these orders that the instant revision petition has been filed by her before the Board.

(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments, advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also scanned the record on file. A bare perusal of the record on file clearly reveals that both the learned Courts below, have rejected the application, dated 12-2-1992, moved on behalf of the revisionist on the ground that the principle of res-judicata and the point of limitation do not bar the instant proceedings. As a matter of fact, the legality and veracity of the lease, in question, have never been adjudicated upon earlier. What was, in fact, done is that since the land comes under Section 132 of the Act, amendment was ordered to be made accordingly. So far as the point of limitation is concerned, although the complaint was made in the year 1991, but after enquiry, if the collector, concerned is satisfied to proceed with the case, it would always be deemed that he has tken the action suo-moto, and in such a case, the complaint is nothing but a source of information to him and therefore, the question of limitation does not arise at all. Both the learned Courts below have dealt with the matter, in question, through and through, in correct perspective of law and were perfectly, justified in rendering the impugned orders. Moreover, the final decision in the matter, in question is yet to be given and the revisionist has nothing to worry about or to feel aggrieved or prejudiced, as she will certainly have ample opportunity to have her say before the learned trial Court, if she so desires and therefore, the contentions of the learned Counsel for the revisionist who has miserably failed to substantiate his claim, are rather untenable for the same reason. The case laws, cited by him, are also of no help to the revisionist for the simple reason that the facts of the instant case are rather quite different from those of the reported case and therefore, I am of the considered opinion that no error of law, fact or jurisdiction has been committed by the learned Courts, below and as such, this revision petition, having no force, very richly deserves dismissal outright. Needless to say, since this is one of the oldest pending cases, the learned trial Court is, at least, expected to dispose of the same expeditiously, on merits.