BABU LAL Vs. DALBIR SINGH & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CTHIS revision has been filed by Babu Lal against the order of Additional Commissioner, Agra dated 30-7-94 passed in Appeal No. 85/86/87/Agra arising out of the order of SDO Etmadpur dated 10-4-87 under Section 161 UP ZA and LR Act, moved an application for exchange of his Plot No. 977 area 4-11-0 with Plot No. 213 area 3-0-0 and Plot No. 664 area 1-11-0 belonging to Gaon Sabha under Section 161 of UPZA and LR Act. The exchange was accepted by the SDO Etmadpur vide order dated 31-3-1984. Later on Dalbir Singh and Ram Avatar Singh filed an application for arraying parties to the suit claiming that they are also the necessary parties. It was stated by them that they were given Sirdari Patta of the land Plot No. 213 area 3-0-0 and Plot No. 660 area 1-11-0 in their favour by LMC's proposal dated 3-9-1978 and are in possession of the land in dispute since then. They requested that the ex parte order dated 31-3-84 should be set aside and they should be given an opportunity for being heard in the matter. The SDO, Etmadpur rejected their application vide order dated 10-4-87. An appeal was filed against this order in the Court of Commissioner, Agra, which was heard and decided by the Additional Commissioner, Agra. The Additional Commissioner, Agra accepted the appeal and remanded the case to SDO, Etmadpur for disposal after giving opportunities to both parties vide order dated 30-7-94. Aggrieved by this order the instant revision has been filed in this Court.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsels for parties and perused and records.

(3.) HAVING heard the arguments of the Counsel for parties and perusing the records, it is clear that the Plot Nos. 213 area 3-0-0 and Plot No. 664 area 1-11-0 belonged to Gaon Sabha on the date of exchange. The exchange was duly approved by SDO, Etmadpur as per provisions of law. The proceedings under Section 122-B of UPZA and LR Act against the OP's indicates that the OP's were not owners of the land in dispute, but may be trespassers and in unauthorized possession, and were ordered to be ejected from the land in dispute. It is also finding of fact that neither there was any valid allotment in favour of the OP' nor their names were ever recorded in revenue records. Therefore, they were not entitled to maintain action and move for setting aside the order of SDO dated 31-3-1984. Thus, I do not agree with the order of Additional Commissioner, Agra dated 30-7-94.