LALMANI Vs. GAON SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision preferred against the order dated 1-6-1992 passed by Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad arising out of proceedings under Section 198(4) of the UPZA and LR Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that in a suo moto proceeding under Section 198(4) of the UPZA and LR Act in respect of lease granted on 28-9-1970 in favour of Lalmani regarding plots in dispute detailed down at the foot of the complaint, situated in village Pratappur Shergarh, Tehsil Kunda District Pratapgarh. On issuance of notices objections were filed in respect of the contentions raised regarding the alleged lease deed executed on recommendation of concerned LMC whereby the pleading taken in the complaint were altogether denied and contended that the lease-holder was major one and living separately from his father's family that lease was granted in accordance with law after fulfilling legal obligations in respect of such lease. It was further contended therein that the lease holder was landless agricultural labourer, that he had enemical terms with the Pradhan of the village which led to moving cancellation application. Later on the parties advanced evidences in respect of their claims and it is after evaluating the Chief Revenue Officer Allahabad passed order dated 3-8-1991. Aggrieved by the above order a revision was preferred before the Commissioner Allahabad Division, Allahabad which has been heard and decided vide Additional Commissioner's order dated 1-6-1992 which is under challenge before the Board and is being heard by this Court.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the revisionist mainly narrated the history of the case and submitted that the lease in question was granted on 28-9-1970, that the cancellation proceedings started suo moto in 1991 hence the cancellation proceedings were highly time barred; that the lease was granted after fulfilling the legal requirements required for the grant of such lease; that lease-holder Lalmani was major one living separately from his father's family; that the lease in question was not hit by Section 28-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act; that after grant of the lease in the year 1970 consolidation proceedings intervened in the village and the matter stood decided and finally settled with the lease-holder. Consequently the plot in dispute came to be recorded in the name of lease holder and in C.H. Form 41 and C.H. Form 45 the lease holder stood recorded as its bhumidhar; that prior to the instant cancellation proceedings, proceeding had started but they were dropped; that proceedings were initiated only to harass and demoralise the lease-holder due to village enmity hence the orders passed by the Courts below should be quashed. In support of above submissions the learned Counsel for the revisionist referred to RD 1982 page 216(HC); RD 1982 page 7 and 9; RD 1992 page 317 (HC).