SHIV SEWAK ETC. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the judgment and order dated 21-12-1995, passed by the learned Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in revision No. 10 of 1995-96/Hamirpur, dismissing the same and confirming the judgment and orders dated 5-11-1992, 21-6-1995 and 29-11-95 passed by the learned Collector, Hamirpur in proceedings under Section 198(4) of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on an application moved by the chairman, LMC, concerned against the opposite parties No. 1 and 2, inter-alia alleging that the allotments in question, had been made irregularly to the allottees concerned, proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act were initiated against them and a tehsil report was called for. On notice, the opposite party No. 1, Ram Sewak did not contest the proceedings, while the opposite party No. 2, Chhote Lal contested the proceedings, inter-alia pleading that since the allotment was made validly in his favour in all respect, the aforesaid application may be rejected. During the course of the pendency of the proceedings, the opposite party No. 1, Ram Sewak died and was substituted by his heirs and legal representatives, vide order dated 6-3-1991. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite formalities, cancelled the lease, granted in favour of Ram Sewak (deceased) and ordered for the expunction of the names of his heirs and legal representatives, if any, vide its order dated 5-11-1992. Shiv Sewak etc., aggrieved by this order, preferred a revision before the learned Commissioner, who has dismissed the same, vide his judgment and order dated 21-12-1995 and therefore, it is against these orders that the instant revision petition has been preferred by them 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. A bare perusal of the record clearly reveals that the application dated 6-3-1991 moved by the Pradhan for the substitution of Shiv Sewak, Krishna Sewak and Jai Sewak in place of the deceased, Ram Sewak, was allowed by the learned trial Court the same day and therefore, it is wrong to say that one of the heirs of the deceased, Shiv Sewak was not substituted in his place. So far as the contention in respect of the substituted heirs Nos. 2 and 3 being minors and no guardian for them has been appointed, are concerned, the learned Commissioner has rather very rightly observed that since no proof of their being minors was ever produced in support of the same and had they been so under the guardianship of their mother, she ought to have prosecuted the case in their place and by not doing so, none except her is responsible for the same. It has rather come on the record that by the report of the process-server that Ram Sewak had expired and the notice was served on his widow, Smt. Bhagwati, the application for his substitution was moved by the Pradhan on 6-3-1991 during the course of the proceedings in question which was allowed the same day and therefore, it is also wrong to say that the proceedings in question are against a dead person. Both the learned Courts below have dealt with matter in question logically and analytically, in correct perspective of law and therefore, I am fully convinced that no interference with their views is called for at this stage. Since the allottee was not an eligible person for such allotment, the lease granted in his favour was naturally irregular had has rightly been cancelled by them and therefore, I am of the considered opinion that this revision petition, having no force, very richly deserves dismissal outright.