TAJOO Vs. AMAN AHMAD & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the order dated 30-7-02 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, arising out of an order passed by the S.D.O., Alapur, dated 22-3-97, under Section 123(i) U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that on an application moved by Raghupati, a report was asked for from the tahsildar and in response thereof a report dated 20-3-97 was submitted whereby plot No. 69/0.193 hectare situate in village Kathmorwa, was recommended to be recorded as abadi in class-6 after strucking of the same of khata of naveen parti. On receipt of the said report, the SDO, Alapur, accepted the report as proposed, vide the order dated 22-3-97 and in due course of time a restoration application against the order dated 22-3-97 was moved by one Ram Bibhuti with the contention that the litigation in respect of the disputed plot was going on in Civil Court wherein a temporary injunction was granted in the matter in favour of Ram Bibhuti; hence the prayer was made for allowing the restoration application. The restoration application as mentioned above was pending for hearing before the trial Court but Ram Bibhuti impatently preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, wherein the aforementioned order was passed by the Additional Commissioner which is under challenged before this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revisionist narrated the history of the case and submitted that in view of Civil Court's injunction the matter ought not to have been agitated and adjudicated by the SDO, Alapur, that the application under Section 123(i) of the Act, being misconceived ought to have been dismissed, that the trial Court's order was cursory and creptic one without application of mind as such, the same happened to be an erroneous order should not be sustained. In reply, it is contended by the opposite-parties that the SDO acted on the report of tahsildar that the report was self explanatory and self contained and was rightly proposed, that the revisionist here was not a party before the trial Court as such, he had no locus standi in the matter.