DUKHI RAM Vs. RAM BHAROSEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference arises out of an order dated 23-7-1990 passed by the Additional Collector, Moradabad in proceedings under Sec. 122-C of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

(2.) The facts of the case are that proceedings under Sec. 122-C of the Act were initiated on the application of one Ram Bharosey (hereinafter referred to as the opposite party). It was alleged that plot No. 264 situate in village Sadarpur Matlabpur Tehsil Amroha was earmarked for manure-pit and was a land of public utility. This plot was allotted to Sukhi Ram, Sannu, Udhan Singh, Sunder Singh, Sumeri, Ganga Ram by the LMC without observing any legal formalities. In response to the show cause notice, the allottees (hereinafter referred to as the revisionist) decide the allegation. Their contention is that they were entitled to be admitted by the LMC. The learned Additional Collector found that the land was earmarked for manure-pit and that it could not be allotted for residential purposes under Sec. 122-C (d) of the Act. He has also observed that necessary formalities with regard to munadi etc were also not observed. He has further observed that some of the allottees already held land. With these observations, he cancelled the allotment by means of his order dated 23-7-1990. Aggrieved by this order, Sukhi Ram and other went in revision before the Divisional Commissioner. The learned Additional Commissioner finds that the order of the learned trial court is not based on the facts and law. He finds no irregularity in the allotment. As regards the allotment of land earmarked for public utility, he refers to Sec. 122-C (d) which provides that where the land earmarked for the extension of abadi and reserved as abadi site for Harijans under the UPCH Act, 1953, is considered by him to be insufficient and land earmarked for other public purposes under that Act is available, then any part of the land so available may be trade. With these observations, he has made this reference with the recommendation to set aside the order of the learned trial court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Sri K.D. Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist has urged to accept the reference. Sri H N Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party has contented that the land was earmarked for manure-pit. Until there was a specific order with regard to the change in the use of the land, its allotment was against law. His second contention is that the relevant provision with regard to munadi etc were not met and the allottees were not eligible persons as they had already held sufficient land. His last submission is that there is no evidence to show that the land was insufficient to meet the requirements of the allottees.