AHILYA BAI 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 18-9-2001 passed by the learned Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in revision petition No. 59 of 1997-98/Lalitpur, arising out of the judgment and order dated 11-12-1997 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 161 of the Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on an application under Section 161 of the Act, moved by Ahilya Bai on 15-9-1994 for exchange of her land in dispute with that of the Gaon Sabha concerned, inter alia pleading that she being bhumidhar in possession of her land in dispute with transferable rights and since the same are scattered and away from each other, causing difficulties in her cultivatory activities, exchange of the same may be allowed with that of the Gaon Sabha concerned as the same is not reserved for any public utility and the valuation of the two land is less than 10%, enclosing a resolution of the LMC, concerned in its favour. A report was called for from the tehsil concerned. Objections were filed by the State inter alia pleading that the land of the Gaon Sabha, concerned is reserved to public utility and the requisite permission of the tehsildar concerned under Rule 110-A (2) of the UPZA and LR Rules was also not obtained in favour of the same. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite formalities, allowed the exchange sought for, vide its order dated 11-12-1997 against which a revision was preferred by the State before the learned Commissioner who has allowed the same and set aside the impugned order, vide his order dated 18-9-2001 and therefore, it is against this order that the instant revision petition has been preferred by Ahilya Bai 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 the learned trial Court on the basis of the statement of the Lekhpal concerned as well as the resolution of the LMC concerned, has allowed the exchange sought for while the learned Commissioner is of the opinion that observance of Rule 110-A (2) of the UPZA and LR Rules has not been followed by the learned trial Court while accepting such exchange. Nothing is on the record to show that any permission from the competent authority as required under Rule 110-A (2) of the Rules was obtained before such exchange. Since such permission is mandatory in law, the learned Commissioner was perfectly justified in rendering the impugned order and therefore, I am fully convicted that such an exchange has rightly been rejected by him. It is also true that the tehsil report does not amount to such permission under Rule 110-A (2) of the Rules. So far as the plea in respect of the maintainability of the revision petition before the learned Commissioner is concerned, it is sufficient to observe here that a revision may be preferred against any order of the sub-ordinate Court under Section 333 of the Act and as such, no illegality or material irregularity has either been committed in this respect by him and therefore, I, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as the evidence on record, an of the considered opinion that this revision petition being devoid of merits, very richly deserves dismissal outright.