BRINDABAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) preferred against the judgment and order dated 25-9-1993 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in revision petition No. 72/165 of 1991-92/Lalitpur, dismissing the same and confirming the judgment and order dated 30-7-1991 passed by the learned trial Court in proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on the basis of the complaint made by the revisionist, Brindaban, proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the allottee, Hari Ram, were initiated on the ground of irregular allotment. It was inter alia alleged that the allottee concerned was not an eligible person for such an allotment in view of the fact that he being a truck-driver, living outside the circle, was not a landless agricultural labourer. On notice, the allottee concerned contested the proceedings, denying the allegations and inter alia pleading that at the time of allotment in question, he was very well a resident of circle concerned and is a voter of the same. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite formalities, rejected the complaint of the revisionist and maintained the lease in question, vide its order dated 30-7-1991. The revisionist went up in revision before the learned Additional Commissioner who has also dismissed the same, vide his judgment and order dated 25-9-1993 and therefore, it is against these orders that the instant revision petition has been preferred by him 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. A bare perusal of the record on file clearly reveals that in his statement on oath, the Lekhpal, concerned has admitted that the allottee lived in village Masaurakhurd in his father-in-law's house. This fact is also confirmed from the report of the process-server who reported that he was living there for 10-12 years. This report contains the signatures of the two witnesses which conclusively proves the fact of his residence in village Masaurakhurd. So far as the allottee not being a landless agricultural labourer is concerned this has to be seen at the time of allotment and since there is nothing on the record to show otherwise, it could very easily be inferred that the revisionist has bitterly failed to discharge the burden of proving this thing. In the absence of any evidence on record, the learned Courts below were perfectly justified in rejecting the complaint of the revisionist. The approach adopted by them appears to be rather quite analytical and logical and therefore, I am of the considered opinion that this revision petition, having no force, very richly deserves dismissal outright, as the burden of proving non-eligibility of the allottee, concerned was heavily upon the revisional which he bitterly failed to discharge.