DAYA SHANKAR Vs. SHIV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision preferred against the order dated 7-4-1998 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad arising out of a proceeding under Rule 115-P of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules whereby the order passed by Additional Collector (Administration) dated 21-12-1996 has been set aside and an application preferred under Rule 115-P of the Rules has been allowed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on an application moved by Vijai Kumar and others proceedings under Rule 115-P of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules started before Chief Revenue Officer with contention that Plot No. 789 situate in village Ghinpur Pargana Mirzapur Chauhari Tehsil Soraon District Allahabad was recorded as Banjar in revenue records and adjacent to the said plot there was Plot No. 790 which belonged to the applicant whereon he has Khaliyan, trees etc. exist and Plot No. 789 was not vacant one because there were several houses of the Scheduled Caste etc. that village Pradhan without following the procedures and calling meeting etc. allotted the same for abadi purposes to Amarnath Patel and Daya Shanker Shukla resident of the same village; that allottees had abadi and other land also is on the above mentioned hence a prayer was made for cancellation of lease made in favour of said allottees. Then after matter went before Additional Collector (Administration) Allahabad who dismissed the application as being not maintainable vide order dated 21-12-1996. Aggrieved by the said order a revision was preferred before Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad which has been heard and decided vide Additional Commissioner's order dated 7-4-1998 which is under challenge before the Board.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the revisionist mainly narrated the entire history of the case and submitted that if Chief Revenue Officer and Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to try the proceedings preferred before them that it was the Collector only who had the jurisdiction to interfere in such matters. Hence the orders passed by the Courts below being without jurisdiction should be set aside. The Additional Commissioner decided the case without giving opportunity to the parties concerned and considering the points involved in the case; that L.M.C. being a necessary party and without impleading the same the order has been passed.