RAM SWAROOP Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a review petition under Order XLVII, Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC, preferred by Ram Swaroop against the judgment and order, dated 12-1-2000, passed by this Court in revision petition No. 28 of 1994-95 Lalitpur Ram Swaroop v. State, dismissing the same and confirming the judgment and orders, passed by the learned Court below in a case under Section 198(4) of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned DGC (R) and have also perused the record on file as well as the impugned order. Assailing the impugned order, the bone of contentions of the learned Counsel for the review petitioner inter-alia, in a nut shell, is that since the impugned orders as well as the orders, passed by the learned Courts below are based upon the outside the pleadings, which were not pleaded either in the report of the lekhpal concerned (paper Nos. 3 and 4) as well as in the notices (paper Nos. 8 and 9), an error apparent on the face of the record has crept, in which requires to be reviewed and the revision petition, in question, to be decided afresh and therefore, this review petition very richly deserves to be allowed. The learned DGC (R), in reply, urged that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as the evidence on record, this Court was perfectly justified in rendering the impugned order, which calls for no interference and therefore, this review petition, having no force very richly deserves dismissal outright.

(3.) I have also heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned DGC (R) on the merits of the revision petition and have also perused the record on file. Briefly stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant revision petition are that suo moto, proceedings for cancellation of the lease, in question, granted in favour of the revisionist, were initiated on the ground of irregular allotment and the learned trial Court, after completing the requisite formalities, has cancelled the aforesaid lease on 11-4-1991. Thereafter, the revisionist went up in revision before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has dismissed the same vide his order, dated 21-10-1994 and therefore, it is against these orders that the instant revision petition has been preferred by Ram Swaroop before the Board.