ACHHAR PRASAD Vs. MANGALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference, dated 18-8-1993 made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in respect of revision petition No. 8/6 of 1990-91/Jalaun, arising out of the judgment and order, dated 22-12-1990, passed by the learned trial Court in proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), recommending that the allotment made in favour of Mangali May be cancelled and the land in dispute to vest in the Gram Sabha concerned.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant reference are that on the application of the revisionist for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the opposite party as well as on the tehsil report, proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act were initiated against the allottee, concerned. On notice, the allottee, concerned, denied the allegations and inter-alia pleaded that the allotment in question, was made in his favour as per Rules, after observing the requisite formalities. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite formalities, vide its order, dated 22-12-1990, rejected the application of the revisionist, holding the lease in question valid and regular and therefore, it is against this order that a revision petition was preferred by the complainant before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has made this reference to the Board along with his aforesaid recommendation.

(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the submissions, made by the learned counsel for the revisionist and have also scanned the relevant papers on file. A bare perusal of the record on file clearly reveals that the points, raised by the revisionist in his application were neither considered or looked into by the learned trial Court nor by the learned referring Court. The revisionist has inter-alia, in a nut shell, pleaded firstly, that the land in dispute, not cultivable banjar; secondly, that his old trees are standing thereon and therefore, the same is in the shape of a grove; thirdly, that the procedure laid down for such allotment has not been observed inasmuch as the order of preference has also not been followed, while granting the patta. Both the learned Courts below have rather swayed away on flimsy grounds and have, in fact, not dealt with the matter in question, in its right perspective nor has any finding thereon been recorded and therefore, I, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, am, without commenting upon the merits of the case, of the considered opinion that this is rather a fit case for remand to the learned trial Court for decision afresh, on merits, according to law and as such, the recommendation, made by the learned Additional Commissioner is liable to be rejected.