RAM ADHAR Vs. RAM SUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this reference dated 2-8-1978, the learned Commissioner, Faizabad Division Faizabad, has recommended that the order of the learned trial court dated 10-3-1978 be set aside and the case be remanded for impleading the LMC as a necessary party and for decision afresh.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. This bearing was confined to the question whether the case must be remanded or can be considered and decided here because it appears that the LMC was a party before the learned trial court and the recommendation being misconceived deserves to be rejected.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that Sec. 218 of the Land Revenue Act is the same as Sec. 333-A of the UP ZA and LR Act and the ruling reported in 1967 RD 84 supports his contention that the power of the Commissioner and thereby the power of the Board u/Sec. 333-A of the Act are much wider than the powers u/Sec. 333 of the Act which corresponds to Sec. 219 of the UP LR Act, He argued that the revisionist was entitled to take advantage of more liberal provision and, therefore, the case should be remanded to the Commissioner for further enquiry and a reference, if necessary The learned DGC (R) has argued that there was no need to further remand and further enquiry, that since the LMC was already a party in the trial court, there was no illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction and the reference and revision petition must be rejected.