KOMAL CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference dated 28-5-1993 made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in respect of revision petition No. 87/155/57 of 1984-85/Lalitpur, Komal Chand (since deceased and substituted by Dharmendra Kumar v. State, arising out of the judgment and order dated 19-4-1985 passed by the learned trial Court in proceeding under Section 198(4) of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), recommending that the revision petition be allowed and the impugned order dated 19-4-1985 be set aside.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the instant reference are that on complaint of Halkey, proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act were initiated against the allottee, Sant Prasad for cancellation of two leases granted in his favour on the ground of irregular allotments. On notice the allottee concerned contested the proceedings inter alia pleading that the allotments were regular and the land in dispute was sold by him to the revisionist after getting the bhumidhari sanad which was valid and regular under Section 139 of the Act. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite formalities, vide its order dated 19-4-1985, cancelled both the allotments and ordered the land in dispute to vest in the Gaon Sabha concerned and therefore, it is against this order that the instant revision petition has been preferred by the vendee, Komal Chand before the Board.

(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned DGC (R) and have also scanned the record on file. It is apparent from a bare perusal of the record on file that the allottee, Sant Prasad obtained a lease in village Pathapochora, which was transferred by him in favour of the revisionist after getting a sanad bhumidhari, vide the sale-deed dated 23-10-1969 and thereafter, he obtained another lease in village Khangol. It has also come on the record that he is a resident of village Imalia, which is his native village and this fact is confirmed from his own admission and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the learned trial Court was perfectly justified in holding him as not an eligible person for such allotment and as such the cancellation of both the leases granted in his favour was perfectly in order. This material aspect of the matter in question that the allottee being a resident of outside the circle and ineligible for such allotment, most probably, escaped consideration by the learned Additional Commissioner and therefore, his recommendation cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be accepted and the reference is liable to be rejected.