ACHHEY LAL Vs. ARVIND KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred against the judgment and order, dated 15-3-1995, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in revision Petition No. 26/64 of 1993-94/Hamirpur, dismissing the same and confirming the judgment and order, dated 28-10-1993, 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 Achhey Lal, proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act were initiated against the allottee for cancellation of lease granted in his favour on the ground of irregular allotment. On notice, the allottee, Arvind Kumar contested the proceedings, denying the allegations and inter alia pleading that the proceedings, in question, are not maintainable in view of the fact that the complainant is not an aggrieved person and the LMC, concerned has not been made a party to it. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite formalities, rejected the application, moved by Achhey Lal, vide its judgment and order, dated 28-10-1993, against which a revision petition was preferred by him before the learned Additional Commissioner, which too stood dismissed, vide judgment and order, dated 15-3-1995, passed by him and therefore, it is against these orders that the instant revision petition been preferred by him before the Board.

(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments, advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also scanned the record on file. The crux of the matter in question is whether or not the Gaon Sabha/LMC, concerned had any authority to execute a lease and whether or not the same was granted validily. It has also to be examined whether or not the complainant was an eligible person and his application was maintainable. It has come on the record that the land in dispute is recorded as Navin Parti in the village revenue records and therefore, the learned Courts below were perfectly justified in holding the same as the property of the Gaon Sabha, concerned of which a Patta could very well be executed. It has been observed by them that for the validity of the Patta, it is not sufficient to say that the land in dispute contains a well and fields of his co-tenants are adjacent to the same. Since the title of the revisionist to the land, in dispute, is not established from the record and the LMC, concerned, which is a mandatory party to the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act, has not been arrayed as such, his application was rightly held to be not maintainable, having no force. So far as the formalities in respect of the grant of Patta is concerned, both the learned Courts, below, are satisfied that the lease, in question, has been validly granted after following the procedure, laid down for the same and therefore, I am satisfied that both the learned Courts, below, were perfectly justified in rejecting the application of the revisionist. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the revisionist, who has miserably failed to substantiate his claim are rather untenable for the same reason and 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 cases and therefore, I am of the considered opinion that this revision petition, having no force, very richly deserves dismissal outright, as no illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction has been committed by the learned Courts, below.