VIRI SINGH Vs. PURAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order dated 3-2-1995 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, in a revision filed against the order dated 16-11-1991 passed by the trial Court in a case under Section 198(4) Z.A. and L.R. Act.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant papers on file.

(3.) HERE having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the relevant papers on file I find the learned trial Court has recorded finding that neither the lease has been filed nor the trees have been planted over the same. The learned Additional Commissioner in his order dated 3-2-1995 has recorded finding since the lease has not been filed as such, the revisionist is not an aggrieved person. In the circumstance I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below. The learned Counsel for the revisionist has failed to show any illegality or irregularity committed by the Courts below in passing the aforesaid impugned orders.