HASHMAT SHAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 14-1-1989 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Muradabad Division, Muradabad arising out of the judgement and order passed by Sri A K. Barnwal, Additional Collector Rampur in proceedings under Sec. 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act.

(2.) The facts of the case are that proceedings under Sec. 198 (4) of the Act were initiated on the report of the SDO Bilaspur dated 88-7-1986. The SDO reported that the allotment of the land in dispute made in favour of Mohammad Ahmad (hereinafter referred to as the revisionist) was illegal because his father had already held 8⅛ acres land. In response to the notice, Hashmat Shah son of Saidullah Shah made objection on behalf of his deceased son Mohammad Ahmad. His main contention is that he inherited the land from his deceased son Mohad Ahmad and so the allotment cannot be cancelled under Sec. 198(4) of the Act. Not satisfied with the explanation, the learned Additional Collector cancelled the allotment on two grounds viz. the objector had already held land when the allotment was made in favour of his son and that he was a member of the Gram Samaj. Aggrieved by this order, Hashmat Shah went in revision before the Divisional Commissioner. The learned Additional Commissioner dismissed the revision on the ground that the allotment was made in violation of Sec. 28-C of the Panchayat Raj Act.

(3.) I have heard Sri J. S. Tomar, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned DGC (R), The first contention of Sri Tomar is that the entire proceedings were initiated because the notice was issued under the signature of the Reader, Reliance has been placed on 1987 RJ 111. His second contention is that though there were more than one allottee, only the revisionist was singled out for the purpose of the lease. Reliance has been placed on 1988 RJ 304. His third contention is that the proceedings are beyond time. Reliance-has been placed on 1988 RJ 168. His last submission is that the Collector has failed to make proper enquiry as required under Rule 178-A of the Rules. The learned DGC (R) has contended that there is no jurisdictional error in the orders of the courts below.