AYODHYA PRASAD Vs. GENDA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revision and reference are arising out an order dated 25-3-92 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, in a revision, with the recommendation that the revision be allowed and the whole allotment proceedings being irregular, the leases be cancelled.

(2.) FACTS of the case in brief are that the plaintiffs, Bani Singh, and others moved an application under Section 198(4), U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, before the trial Court on the grounds that the allotment made in favour of the opposite parties, Ayodhya and others, be cancelled as they were granted without following the procedure prescribed by law. Notices were issued to otherside who in response thereof filed objection state therein that the allotment has been made in accordance with law as such, the same be sustained. The trial Court after hearing to both the parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record cancelled the allotment in respect of plot No. 165 and confirmed the rest of the allotments made to other allottees, vide the order dated 26-9-1990. Against this very order a revision was filed before the Commissioner, Agra Division, wherein the recommendation has been made for allowing the revision and cancelling all the irregular allotments, vide the order dated 25-3-92. Against this very order, a revision has also been filed before the Board of Revenue and, therefore, the revision and reference are being heard together and are being decided by a common order. The revision No. 64 of 92-93/Aligarh shall be the leading file.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the relevant papers on file it is clear that the Plot No. 165 is recorded as Rasta which is public utility land and hence the trial Court has recorded finding to the effect that the public utility land cannot be allotted on lease and, therefore, cancelled the lease in respect of Plot No. 165. Thus, the trial Court committed no illegality in cancelling the allotment of the same; while the learned Additional Commissioner is of the view that the procedure prescribed under Rule 173 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules has not been followed and hence made a reference in respect of cancelling all the leases granted by the same proposal; further he has also recorded finding that the allottees are not eligible person for the allotment. In the circumstances, I find that the learned Counsel for the revisionist here failed to show any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error committed by the Courts below in passing the aforesaid impugned orders. In view of the above, I do not find force in the instant revision which deserves to be dismissed and further the reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner also does not suffer from any infirmity or irregularity as such, the reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner is also liable to be accepted.