ANOKHEY LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference dated 27-8-1993, made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly, in respect of the revision petition No. 141/117 of 1993, arising out of the judgment and order dated 28-1-1993, passed by the learned trial Court in a case under Section 167 of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), recommending that the revision be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant reference are that on the report of Kaushal Kumar Dubey, proceedings under Section 167 of the Act were initiated in respect of the registered transfer of the land in dispute by Guru Bachan Singh in favour of Anokhey Lal etc., inter-alia on the ground of the transfer being void under Section 168 of the Act, as the land transferred to them was not adjacent to their plots. On notice, the transferees contested the proceedings, denying the allegations. The learned trial Court, vide its order dated 28-1-1993, ordered the land in dispute to vest in the State after expunging the names of the transferees from the revenue record and therefore, it is against this order that a revision petition was preferred by Anokhey Lal before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has made this reference to the Board with his aforesaid recommendation.

(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. The learned Additional Commissioner is of the view that Roshan Singh transferred Plot No. 199/5.55 acres in favour of Maluk Singh, Subek Singh and Guru Bachan Singh and since Guru Bachan Singh has transferred his entire share including that of his transferred share in favour of the revisionist, as per the case law, reported in 1980 AWC 258, such a transfer is not hit by the provisions of Section 168-A of the Act and therefore, the impugned order, being defective in law, cannot be allowed to sustain. The view expressed by him appears to be quite logical and plausible in law and therefore, I am, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, fully convinced that the recommendation made by him is quite justified in the eyes of law and as such this reference very richly deserves acceptance in toto.