RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference dated 11-11-1991 has been made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in respect of the revision petition No. 145/81 of 1989-90/Lalitpur, Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. etc., arising out of the judgment and order dated 28-5-1990 passed by the learned trial Court in proceedings under Section 198(4) of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), recommending that the revision petition be allowed, the impugned order dated 28-5-1990 concerning the cancellation of the lease in respect of plot No. 64-M/2.04 only, granted in favour of the revisionist, be set aside and the lease in question be maintained.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant reference are that on the basis of the tehsil report, suo moto proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act were initiated against the revisionist for the cancellation of the lease granted in his favour, inter alia on the ground of irregular allotment as the family of the allottee had sufficient land prior to the aforesaid allotment. On notice, the revisionist contested the proceedings, denying the allegations and inter alia pleading that the lease in question was validly granted in his favour as he was a landless agricultural labourer and his family had no land because he lived separately from his father. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite formalities, cancelled the lease in question, vide its order dated 28-5-1990 and therefore, the revisionist went up in revision before the learned Additional Commissioner who has made the instant reference to the board with his aforesaid recommendation.

(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also scanned the record on file. A bare perusal of record on file clearly reveals that in the facts and circumstances as well as the evidence on record of the instant case, the learned Additional Commissioner was perfectly justified in making the aforesaid recommendation because, as per the statement of the Lekhpal concerned, the family of the allottee had no land except the leased land and therefore, he very well comes within the category of landless agricultural labourer. It is rather noticeable that the revisionist lived separately from his father at the time of allotment and therefore, had the family of his father had sufficient land, the same cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be taken into consideration for the purpose of cancellation of the lease, in question. It is rather the settled principle of law and therefore, the reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner seems to be quite logical and as per the law on the subject. Since the learned trial Court has swayed away on flimsy and extraneous grounds, it was not at all justified in cancelling the allotment in question and therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner, being perfectly justified, very richly deserves acceptance in toto.