SARJOO Vs. ABDUL LATIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision preferred against the order dated 23-1-1998 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad whereby the entire matter has been demanded to the trial Court for fresh hearing with the direction mentioned therein.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on an application moved by Abdul Latif son of Lal Mohd resident of village Ismailganj, Pargana and Tehsil Soraon District Allahabad in a proceeding under Section 198(4) of the UPZA and LR Act started in respect of plot No. 121 area 3 Biswa and 8 Dhur situate in the same village. On receipt of complaint notices were issued to the other side. They appeared in response thereof and contested the proceedings whereby supported their claims by means of evidences and after taking evidences the Chief Revenue Officer proceeded in the matter vide its order dated 23-8-1996 and the application stood rejected holding therein that the applicant was not aggrieved party. On being challenged the said order of the Chief Revenue Officer the learned Additional Commissioner passed the above mentioned order and now aggrieved party is before the Board and the same is being heard by this Court.

(3.) BOTH the learned Counsels submitted their arguments that in view of the observations made in A.C.J. 1995 page 1313, it is the Collector of the district who has jurisdiction to enquire such matters hence the enquiry made by the Chief Revenue Officer being without jurisdiction should not be sustained. In view of the above submissions I do not find any necessity to go further in the matter and as the learned Additional Commissioner has already remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh hearing hence in the circumstances of the case and in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court in the referred citation I am of the opinion that the enquiry has been made without jurisdiction and it is the Collector who has the authority to pass the order.