RAM PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision preferred against the order dated 8-2-96 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad arising out of proceeding under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act heard and decided by Additional Collector Sultanpur.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that Rameshwar Prasad son of Ramphal moved an application under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act with the allegations that plot No. 81 situate in village Judiyapur Pargana Amethi, Tehsil Gauriganj District Sultanpur was recorded as pasture land in revenue records. Out of the said plot one biswas recorded allotted to Ram Prasad son of Dubari who did not belong to Schedule Caste community. On issuance of notices allottee concerned filed written objection contending therein that the allottee was a landless agricultural labourer and the allotment in question was made after observing the prescribed procedures for the same; that the land in question was not a pasture land and the land was fit for agriculture. On the pleadings of the parties the Additional Collector framed four issues for decision of the case and parties were allowed to adduce evidences in respect of their claims. A report in respect of the same was obtained from the tehsil also. After close of the evidences application for cancellation of the lease in question was allowed and the lease granted to Ram Prasad stood cancelled vide order dated 15-4-91 and the land was vested with the concerned Gaon Sabha. Aggrieved by the said order dated 15-4-91 a revision was preferred before the Commissioner Faizabad which has been heard and decided by Additional Commissioner's order dated 8-2-96 and the revision stood dismissed. Now aggrieved parties are before Board against the said orders.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist was landless agricultural labourer, that mere service in college was not enough to deprive him of land allotment for agricultural purposes; that allotment in question was made after following procedures made for the same hence the order passed by the Courts below were unjust and improper should be set aside.