STATE Vs. MOTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference, dated 10-7-1989, made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in Revision Petition No. 118 of 1986/87 Lalitpur, arising out of the judgment and order, dated 21-12-1985, 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 be allowed, the impugned order, dated 21-12-1985, be set aside and the allotment, made in favour of Moti be cancelled, being irregular.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant reference are that suo-moto proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the Act for the cancellation of the lease, in question, were initiated against Moti. On notice, the lessee contested the same, denying the allegations and inter-alia pleading that he is a landless agricultural labourer and not a member of the LMC at the time of allotment. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite formalities, maintained the lease and therefore, the State of U.P. went up in revision before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has made this reference with her aforesaid recommendation.

(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments, advanced before me by the learned DGC (R) and the learned Counsel for the opposite party and have also scanned the record, on file. A bare perusal of the referring order clearly reveals that the learned Additional Commissioner has observed that although the learned trial Court has admitted the lessee to be a member of the LMC, concerned at the time of allotment, who was present in the meeting of the allotment, in question, in the same capacity, but on the question of permission of the Collector, concerned, it has arbitrarily held the allotment, in question, as valid in view of the allottee, being belonging to the Maurya community. It is unquestionable that permission of the Collector concerned is a pre-requisite for the allotment in favour of any office bearer of the LMC, concerned, as per Section 28-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, in the absence of which, the person, concerned cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be said to be an eligible person and therefore the recommendation, made by the learned Additional Commissoner is sound, in correct perspective of law. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the opposite party, who has miserably failed to substantiate his claim, are rather untenable for the same reason and therefore, the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner very richly deserves acceptance.