GANGA DEVI Vs. NANHI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Ganga Devi and others have filed this revision under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act against the order dated 10-7-2000 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division.

(2.) SMT . Nanhi opposite-party moved an application under Section 229-D of the UPZA and LR Act requesting the Court to appoint a receiver because the other party is trying to interfere in the possession of Smt. Nanhi Devi. The learned trial Court rejected the application under Section 229-D of the UPZA and LR Act on the basis that there is no such ground mentioned in the judgment which could process that the plaintiff-opposite-party Smt. Nanhi Devi has any right in the land in dispute. It can only be ascertained when the suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act is decided finally. Aggrieved by this order Nanhi Devi filed a revision before the Commissioner Court. The learned Additional Commissioner set aside the order of the learned trial Court and allowed the revision and directed the learned trial Court to look into the circumstances of the case and some receiver should be appointed. Aggrieved by this order this present revision has been filed.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the revisionist argued that the plaintiff-opposite-party till date has not proved her any right in the land in dispute and the learned trial Court was right in rejecting the applicant under Section 229-D of the UPZA and LR Act. Unless the party who is requesting for the appointment of receiver should prove that he is recorded there in the revenue records and the other party is forcefully trying to grab the possession hence the receiver must be appointed. But in the present case no such theory has been established nor any documentary evidence is there to prove it, that the plaintiff-opposite-party has a right in the land in dispute. The order of the learned Additional Commissioner suffers from material irregularity and illegality and needs interference.